RESEARCH IN ACTION
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
A New Approach to Competitive Balance in Disrupted Sports Seasons
Decoding Organizational Design: Insights from Professor John Joseph
How Territoriality Shaped Pandemic Behaviors
A New Approach to Competitive Balance in Disrupted Sports Seasons
Unexpected disruptions have a way of shaking up even the most well-established systems, and the world of professional sports is no exception. When the COVID-19 pandemic threw into chaos the traditional schedules of leagues like the NFL, MLB, and NBA, it wasn’t just the games that were affected—it was the very framework that teams and rankings relied on. With fewer games and playoff uncertainty looming, the challenge became clear: how could teams maintain competitive integrity in the face of such upheaval?
This was the question that intrigued UCI Paul Merage School of Business Associate Professor John Turner and his doctoral students, Ali Hassanzadeh and Mojtaba Hosseini. Together, they saw this disruption not just as a problem, but as an opportunity explore new ways of thinking about how professional teams are ranked. They set out to create a solution that would protect the integrity of team rankings the next time broader circumstances force seasons to spontaneously change course.
Their paper, “How to Conclude a Suspended Sports League?” explores their novel approach to this problem. It was recently published in Manufacturing & Service Operations Management
PhD Student and Basketball Fan Tackles Pandemic NBA Issue
Turner credits the inspiration for the paper to Hassanzadeh, who was deeply affected by the uncertainty surrounding sports leagues during the pandemic. “He was working on other research when he was doing his PhD with me,” Turner says. “After COVID started, he was watching the news, and they kept talking about how no one knew what was going to happen in the NBA or how to resume the league in a shortened time frame.”
NBA’s issue, and his curiosity led to the creation of a research project that would eventually involve Turner and fellow PhD student Hosseini.
“The impetus for the paper was to use what we know about predictive and prescriptive analytics to look at this problem,” Turner says. The result was a comprehensive study that provides a framework for concluding sports leagues under extraordinary circumstances.
Model Predicts Fair, Accurate Outcomes as if Teams Played Full Seasons
Rather than focusing on logistical concerns, Turner and his doctoral students homed in on the issue of maintaining fair and accurate team rankings.
“The impetus for the paper was to use what we know about predictive and prescriptive analytics to look at this problem.
“The question we asked ourselves was, ‘If we believe the most important thing is to have rankings at the end of our shortened season that are as close to what the rankings would have been if the full season was played, what would we do?’”
Hassanzadeh is a dedicated basketball fan who has a strong background in machine learning and optimization. He began to ponder the
This focus led them to develop an optimization model that explicitly accounted for the uncertainty inherent in sports outcomes. They specifically modeled “the uncertainty that exists in the full season ranking,” says Turner. “We compared what the ranking was of our shortened season with the suggested games in the full season as if they had played everything that was left in the remainder of the season. Then we compared the rankings of those two. Our goal was to make those rankings as close as possible.”
The research involved sophisticated mathematical modeling, including the use of stochastic processes
to simulate various possible outcomes. Turner is quick to point out that this approach was not about picking winners and losers but about maintaining the integrity of the competition. “We let the model tell us what the solution should be, in a sense,” he says. “It’s not that we said, ‘We want to pick the more competitive games.’” Rather, they spent time considering how they should go about modeling the situation.
Implications for the Future of Sports and Other Fields
While the study was born out of the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, Turner believes its implications extend far beyond this specific context. “You don’t have to wait around for the next pandemic to use it. There are other instances where leagues are interrupted. Player strikes are probably the largest one,” he says. The researchers’ model could be applied to any sport or competition facing a similar dilemma, from basketball to chess tournaments.
Moreover, Turner sees potential applications in other fields, albeit with some caveats. There are some general principles, he says, but he doesn’t want to go too far to suggest others do exactly what they’ve done. “A lot of work goes into finding the right tweaks that work in a specific environment.”
One of the key takeaways from the research is its focus on fairness and accuracy in rankings, which Turner believes is crucial to maintain the integrity of any competition. The model they developed aims to ensure the teams that deserve to make the playoffs do so—and that home court advantages and other critical factors
are preserved. “By having rankings that are similar, we’re implicitly also making sure the right teams are given the chance to compete in the playoffs,” Turner says.
Tool Maintains Integrity of Competitions in Future Disruptions
As sports leagues around the world continue to grapple with the challenges unexpected interruptions pose, Turner and his colleagues’ research offers a valuable tool for maintaining the integrity of these competitions. By focusing on predictive and prescriptive analytics, they have developed a model that not only addresses the immediate needs of a shortened season but also provides a framework for dealing with future disruptions.
In a world where uncertainty is increasingly the norm, their research serves as a reminder of the importance of adaptability and innovation to ensure that, no matter what happens, the game can go on.
John Turner is an Associate Professor of Operations and Decision Technologies at the Merage School. He specializes in applying rigorous optimization-based methods to real-world problems. His research interests include revenue management, large-scale optimization and decomposition methods, online advertising allocation, sports scheduling, environmental policy, and healthcare management.
Decoding Organizational Design: Insights from Professor John Joseph
Organizational design, a cornerstone of management theory, is evolving to meet the demands of a rapidly changing world. Professor John Joseph, from The Paul Merage School of Business, has brought fresh insights to the field with a landmark research article, “Organization Design: Current Insights and Future Research Directions,” co-authored with Professor Metin Sengul of the University of Texas at Austin, recently published in the Journal of Management.
Their work provides a structured review of more than two decades of organization design literature, presenting key frameworks and trends that are reshaping how scholars and practitioners approach this critical discipline.
“Organization design has significant implications for the broader study and practice of management and has been an important and growing area of research for management scholars,” Joseph explains. “We provided a structured review of the organization design literature since the turn of the 21st century,” he says.
By synthesizing this expansive body of work, Joseph and Sengul identified four foundational approaches to organization design: the “Four C’s” of configuration, control, channelization, and coordination. Each of these principles underpins critical streams of research and informs modern practices.
Comprehensive and Dynamic: Rethinking Organizational Design
Their article not only reviews existing literature but also charts a course for the future of organization design. As Joseph explains, “We wanted to establish what the field looks like today, provide a framework for researchers and managers, and identify the key trends shaping the future.”
One of the study’s most profound insights is that organizational design is inherently dynamic. “It’s not a once-and-done thing,” Joseph emphasizes. “Managers inherit certain designs and must adapt them to meet evolving environments. Recognizing misfits between design and changing circumstances is crucial.”
By reflecting on two decades of research, Joseph and his team uncovered vital trends—most notably, the increasing influence of artificial intelligence (AI), the rise of flat organizations, and the growing need to balance financial goals with social responsibilities. These observations, he hopes, will “bolster this vibrant field and stimulate new studies that deepen, expand, and challenge existing conceptions of the modern organization.”
The Four Cs of Organizational Design
At the heart of this framework lie the “Four Cs” of organization design. These principles offer a lens for understanding and addressing the twin challenges of organizational structure: dividing labor and integrating efforts:
1. Configuration: “Organizations are made up of various structures, processes, and cultures,” Joseph explains. “These elements must fit together and align with the external environment.”
2. Control: This dimension focuses on aligning individual goals with organizational objectives. “It’s about ensuring people work toward the organization’s priorities,” he says.
3. Channelization: Directing attention and resources toward a unified goal is key. Whether aiming for product leadership or customer-centricity, channelization ensures alignment across the organization.
4. Coordination: Achieving common goals requires seamless interaction among team members. “It’s about figuring out how we all work together,” Joseph notes.
“We identified multiple streams of research associated with each of these approaches,” Joseph adds. He emphasizes the interdependence of the Four Cs, cautioning against focusing on any one area at the expense of the others: “Effective organization design requires a holistic approach.”
Inspirations and Methodology
Joseph’s journey into organizational design began during his tenure as co-editor of the Journal of Organization Design. Recognizing the field’s increasing relevance, he embarked on this ambitious review. Joseph and Sengul analyzed articles from leading journals, categorizing them under the Four Cs and identifying emergent themes.
“Organization design is an essential tool for managers,” Joseph asserts. “Whether you’re coordinating small teams or aligning incentives, these principles are universal.”
What Emerged from the Study?
The findings in their research reveal that organizational design is far more than a theoretical construct—it’s a powerful lever for achieving strategic goals. “Think of it like a sledgehammer,” he says. “Changes in formal structure can ripple through informal networks, altering relationships, culture, and social fabric.”
“One of the study’s most profound insights is that organizational design is inherently dynamic.”
Emergence, Joseph explains, is a critical yet often overlooked aspect of organizational design. “Design choices often lead to unintended consequences. Employees might adjust or even resist changes, tweaking systems to make them work better—or worse.”
Middle managers play an increasingly vital role in this context, as they often adapt formal designs to the realities of daily operations. Joseph notes, “They’re the ones who ensure the design functions as intended—or identify and fix what doesn’t.”
Future Trends: Stakeholders, AI, and Flat Structures
Their article identifies three key areas shaping the future of organizational design:
1. Artificial Intelligence: AI challenges traditional design paradigms. “Unlike modular software development,
AI models are deeply integrated,” Joseph explains. “This shift could lead to less modularity and more centralization in organizational structures.”
2. Flat Organizations: Agile and lean models are becoming the norm. “The question is, how do you optimize performance and create value in nonhierarchical systems?” Joseph asks.
3. Balancing Goals: Organizations are increasingly tasked with addressing social goals alongside profitability. “Designs must accommodate employees, communities, and societal impacts,” Joseph observes. Hybrid models, which balance multiple goals, offer a promising path forward.
Key Takeaways for Managers and Researchers
This article underscores the interconnectedness of organizational elements. “You can’t change one piece without considering its impact on the whole system,” he says, emphasizing the importance of adaptability by adding, “Today’s designs won’t necessarily suit tomorrow’s challenges.”
Ultimately, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. “Effective organization design depends on the firm, its industry, and its environment. It’s about finding the right fit,” Joseph concludes.
As businesses navigate an era of unprecedented complexity, Joseph’s research offers both a roadmap and a call to action. By embracing the Four Cs and staying attuned to emerging trends, managers and scholars can shape organizations that are not only efficient but also resilient and adaptive—well-equipped to tackle the challenges of the future.
John Joseph is a Professor of Strategy at the Paul Merage School of Business at UC Irvine. He received his PhD from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He also holds an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. John has taught in the full-time, part-time and executive education programs at Kellogg, Duke and UC Irvine. He is a decorated instructor who has received numerous teaching awards.
How Territoriality Shaped Pandemic Behaviors
Social norms govern much of human interaction, from daily routines to extraordinary circumstances. Yet, as Professor Patrick Bergemann of the UCI Paul Merage School of Business notes, there is surprisingly little understanding of how norms originate. Together with Christof Brandtner of EM Lyon Business School, Bergemann set out to explore this elusive process. Their forthcoming article, “Territoriality and the Emergence of Norms During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” to be published March 2025 in the American Journal of Sociology, promises to shape both academic discourse and real-world policies for years to come.
Their article sheds new light on how communities developed and enforced health-related behaviors during one of the most disruptive events in modern history. It focuses on the emergence of norms surrounding maskwearing, social distancing, and sheltering in place— behaviors that were entirely novel prior to the pandemic. “The question wasn’t just why these norms emerged but why some communities embraced them more effectively than others,” Bergemann explains.
The Pandemic as a Virtual Petri Dish
The COVID-19 pandemic provided an unparalleled opportunity to observe the emergence of norms in real-time. Unlike traditional studies relying on controlled experiments, this research focused on actual behavior in a high-stakes, real-world context. New York City, as an early epicenter of the pandemic, became the research setting. Its diverse neighborhoods, well-documented pandemic data, and availability of granular public records created a fertile ground for investigation.
The study employed two primary data sources:
• SafeGraph mobility data: Tracking the movement of over 40 million anonymized cell phones, the researchers measured shelter-in-place compliance at the neighborhood level.
• 311 complaint calls: Promoted by New York City health officials as a non-emergency way to report violations of health guidelines, these calls offered a proxy for norm enforcement.
By analyzing data across more than 2,000 census tracts, the researchers mapped patterns of compliance and enforcement over time.
Improving Analyst Forecasts with AI
Bergemann emphasizes that for a behavior to qualify as a norm, it requires two elements:
1. Behavioral Regularity: Widespread adoption of the behavior.
2. Moral Enforcement: Social mechanisms that punish deviations, such as disapproval or reporting.
“Wearing sunglasses on a sunny day isn’t a norm because no one punishes you if you don’t,” Bergemann explains. “But failing to socially distance during the pandemic could elicit anything from a dirty look to a 311 report. That’s where norms emerge.”
Territoriality: A Surprising Mechanism
One of the study’s groundbreaking findings is the role of territoriality—a community’s collective sense of ownership over its spaces—in shaping norm compliance and enforcement. This concept, which had not been previously linked to the emergence of norms, became central to the research.
Territoriality is rooted in three factors:
• Ownership: Homeownership rates reflect control over private spaces.
• Modification: Structural changes, such as home renovations, signal a deepened investment in the community.
• Tenure: Length of residence fosters familiarity and attachment to the neighborhood.
These factors create a sense of responsibility that spills into public spaces. “Even sidewalks and parks can feel like ‘your territory,’” Bergemann notes. “When people feel territorial, they’re more likely to enforce norms to protect the space and its users.”
A Tale of Two Neighborhoods
The data revealed striking contrasts in norm adoption across New York City. Communities with higher levels of territoriality—measured by homeownership, permit applications, and length of residence—demonstrated greater compliance with shelter-in-place orders and more frequent enforcement via 311 calls. These neighborhoods effectively self-policed, reducing the need for external enforcement.
In contrast, transient or renter-dominated communities with low levels of territoriality often struggled to establish these norms. Without a strong sense of ownership or permanence, residents were less likely to invest in collective health behaviors, highlighting the need for targeted governmental support.
“When people feel territorial, they’re more likely to enforce norms to protect the space and its users.”
Norms Beyond the Pandemic
The implications of Bergemann and Brandtner’s research extend far beyond COVID-19. Territoriality, as a driver of norm emergence, may influence behavior in numerous settings, from offices to disaster responses. For instance:
• Workplaces: Employees with longer tenure often exhibit greater investment in workplace norms, potentially linked to territoriality over their roles or spaces.
• Crisis Management: Understanding territoriality could help policymakers identify which communities need additional support during emergencies.
• Urban Planning: Strategies that foster a sense of ownership, such as community engagement in public projects, could strengthen social cohesion and norm adoption.
Future Research and Real-World Applications
Bergemann sees immense potential for expanding this line of inquiry. “Norms are everywhere, and territoriality is everywhere,” he says. By applying these findings to other contexts, researchers and practitioners can better understand how to foster cooperation and resilience in communities.
For policymakers, the study offers actionable insights into designing interventions that leverage territoriality to encourage collective action. For instance, initiatives that promote homeownership or long-term residency could enhance a community’s ability to adapt to crises.
A Legacy of Insight
As the world reflects on the lessons of the pandemic, Bergemann and Brandtner’s work stands out as a vital contribution to understanding human behavior. Their research not only illuminates the hidden mechanisms of norm emergence but also offers practical guidance for building stronger, more adaptable communities.
Patrick Bergemann is an Associate Professor of Organization and Management at the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine. He studies the ways in which individuals, organizations, and states respond to wrongdoing, as they seek to stop its occurrence and hold those responsible accountable. One of his primary interests is whistleblowing, where he seeks to understand how social relations influence the willingness to report others, and what prevents some people from coming forward.
Research Abstracts
Latest Published Work by Merage School Faculty Members
Accounting Abstracts
Professors Chuchu Liang and Ben Lourie
Title: “Voluntary Disclosure of Workforce Gender Diversity”
Co-authors: Alex Nekrasov and Il Sun Yoo (PhD Alumnus)
Accepted at: Journal of Financial Reporting
Abstract: We examine managerial incentives to disclose the gender diversity of a firm’s workforce. We exploit information from employees’ online profiles to infer the gender diversity of nondisclosing firms. Within industry, we find that firms are more likely to disclose gender diversity when women comprise a higher proportion of their workforce, consistent with managerial incentives to disclose favorable information. However, disclosure is more prevalent in industries with a lower proportion of female employees, consistent with a poor gender diversity environment making a firm’s gender diversity appear relatively more favorable. Regarding the potential benefits of disclosure, disclosing firms enjoy more favorable media coverage of the firm’s diversity and attract a larger number of gender-lens ESG funds. Disclosing firms with a higher proportion of female employees enjoy greater benefits. Overall, our study broadens our understanding of the evolving corporate disclosure landscape by providing evidence on firms’ incentives to disclose workforce gender diversity.
Professor Emeritus Terry Shevlin and Professors Ben Lourie, Devin Shanthikumar, and Chenqi Zhu
Title: “Effects of the 2021 Expanded Child Tax Credit”
Accepted at: Management Science (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: We analyze the impact of the 2021 Child Tax Credit (CTC) expansion using detailed transaction data from nearly two million individuals and difference-in-difference analyses around monthly CTC payments. We find that recipients significantly increase their consumption in the week following the payment versus the prior week, with more pronounced effects for lower-income recipients and those with more children. We also find a significant reduction in liquidity constraints for lower-income recipients, with
reductions in overdrafts, use of high-interest payday loans, and use of gig work for supplemental income. Building on these initial findings, our analysis further delves into more nuanced, policy-targeted aspects: We observe a greater alleviation of liquidity constraints from monthly CTC payments compared to annual tax refunds. In addition, monthly payments decrease consumption volatility and increase stability in consumption levels. These results inform considerations for payment frequency. Furthermore, we provide insights into the income thresholds for the policy’s phasein and phase-out ranges by identifying the most pronounced consumption effects among the lowest-income recipients—who benefit from full refundability under the plan—and noting an absence of significant consumption changes among higher-income recipients. Our results present the first large-scale, transactionbased, empirical archival evidence of the effects stemming from the 2021 CTC amendments and provide insights for policy-related discussions.
Finance Abstracts
Professor Michael B. Imerman
Title: “SPAC to Basics: A Monte Carlo Approach to Valuing De-SPAC Warrants with Path-Dependent Redemption Features”
Co-authors: Allen Carrion and Hong Zhang
Accepted at: The Journal of Derivatives
Abstract: The authors introduce a Monte Carlo model to value de-SPAC warrants. These warrants contain path-dependent cumulative Parisian redemption features that are ignored by simpler valuation methods. The authors’ model prices basic de-SPAC warrants accurately, provides an upper bound for more complex warrants, and shows that the cumulative Parisian redemption features often have material impacts on warrant values. The authors offer a detailed description and sample code to implement and extend their procedure.
Professor Yuhai Xuan
Title: “Do Professional Rankings Affect Analyst Behavior? Evidence From a Regression Discontinuity Design”
Co-authors: Michael Jung, Yiqing Lu, and Hong Wu
Accepted at: Management Science (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: This study examines how winning a significant industry award affects the behavior of finance professionals. Focusing on sell-side equity analysts and utilizing a novel dataset from Institutional Investor on analyst
rankings, we employ a regression discontinuity design that compares the postaward research outputs and behavior of third-place, all-star analysts with those of first runner-up analysts who barely miss the distinction. Our results show that thirdplace all-star winners are more optimistic in their forecasts and recommendations compared to first runner-up analysts after winning the award, and market reactions to their forecast revisions are stronger. The third-place winners also receive higher priority during earnings conference calls and experience better career outcomes. Our evidence is consistent with award-winning analysts leveraging their increased reputation and market influence to generate more trading commissions and career benefits. The broader inference of our findings is that finance professionals who win a significant award are likely to become more, rather than less, strategic.
Marketing Abstracts
Professor Hope Schau
Title: “How the Algorithmic Pinhole Compromises Consumer Experience”
Co-author: Ashok Kumar Kaliyamurthy
Accepted at: Journal of Consumer Research (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: While pervasive adoption of information technology (IT) brings algorithms into increasing aspects of consumers’ lives, the extant literature is yet to explain how algorithms systematically compromise consumer experience (CX). This research uses a multi-method ethnographic approach to study consumers’ use of fitness tracking software. Findings reveal that the constitutive properties of IT which underlies algorithms impose a set of fundamental interactional restrictions namely algorithmic logics of legibility (what is selectively registered as input), visibility (what is selectively represented in output to whom, when, and where), and legitimacy (normative commitments embedded in input and output choices). These interactional restrictions systematically compromise CX by eliciting consumer work. Data show that consumers perform cognitive work to think through how algorithms function, practical work to get algorithms to function, social work to clarify misrepresentation by algorithms, and affective work when they feel delegitimized by algorithms. Through eliciting these forms of work algorithms systematically compromise the corresponding dimensions of the CX construct. This research makes two contributions 1) it uncovers the fundamental interactional restrictions of algorithms, offering a framework to account for their agency, and 2) it illuminates how the consumer work required to accommodate algorithmic restrictions shapes the multiple dimensions of the CX construct.
Professor Hope Schau and Professor Emerita Mary C. Gilly
Title: “Trying Not to Spend”
Co-authors: Mary Finley Celsi (PhD Alumna), Stephanie Dellande (PhD Alumna), Russell Nelson (PhD Alumnus), Chin-May Aradhye
Accepted at: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: Financial literacy programs aim to prevent consumer overspending by teaching and encouraging fiscally sound habits (purchase restraint, responsible credit use, savings). Unfortunately, trying not to spend is at odds with the emotions consumers experience in a tempting marketplace. The theory of trying considers attitudes and intentions, but not emotions, when trying to consume. To address this gap, we examine indebted consumers opting into formal financial literacy training explicitly designed for debt repayment and avoidance of future debt. Through indebted consumers’ diary reflections and interviews with clients and debt management counselors, we show that financial literacy’s emphasis on budgeting needs versus wants is not sufficient when consumers try not to spend. To reconcile budgets with actual purchasing behavior when faced with temptations in the marketplace, consumers often adopt a linguistic exercise of imaginatively bending and blending utilitarian and hedonic discourses to justify purchases by recategorizing wants as needs. Further, consumers trying not to spend experience negative emotions; how they regulate those emotions impacts their success in getting out of debt. While financial literacy courses only give consumers budget-setting tools, indebted consumers cannot be successful without tools for trying not to spend in the marketplace.
Professor Kalinda Ukanwa
Title: “Algorithmic bias: Social Science Research Integration Through the 3-D Dependable AI Framework
Accepted at: Current Opinion in Psychology Abstract: Algorithmic bias has emerged as a critical challenge in the age of responsible production of artificial intelligence (AI). This paper reviews recent research on algorithmic bias and proposes increased engagement of psychological and social science research to understand antecedents and consequences of algorithmic bias. Through the lens of the 3-D Dependable AI Framework, this article explores how social science disciplines, such as psychology, can contribute to identifying and mitigating bias at the Design, Develop, and Deploy stages of the AI life cycle. Finally, we propose future research directions to further address the complexities of algorithmic bias and its societal implications.
Operations and Decision Technologies
Abstracts
Professor John Turner
Title: “Deepest Cuts for Benders Decomposition”
Co-author: Mojtaba Hosseini (PhD Alumnus)
Accepted at: Operations Research (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: Since its inception, Benders decomposition (BD) has been successfully applied to a wide range of large-scale mixed-integer (linear) problems. The key element of BD is the derivation of Benders cuts, which are often not unique. In this paper, we introduce a novel unifying Benders cut selection technique based on a geometric interpretation of cut depth, produce deepest Benders cuts based on Lp-norms, and study their properties. Specifically, we show that deepest cuts resolve infeasibility through minimal deviation (in a distance sense) from the incumbent point, are relatively sparse, and may produce optimality cuts even when classic Benders would require a feasibility cut. Leveraging the duality between separation and projection, we develop a guided projections algorithm for producing deepest cuts, exploiting the combinatorial structure and decomposability of problem instances. We then propose a generalization of our Benders separation problem, which not only brings several well-known cut selection strategies under one umbrella, but also, when endowed with a homogeneous function, enjoys several properties of geometric separation problems. We show that, when the homogeneous function is linear, the separation problem takes the form of the minimal infeasible subsystems (MIS) problem. As such, we provide systematic ways of selecting the normalization coefficients of the MIS method and introduce a directed depth-maximizing algorithm for deriving these cuts. Inspired by the geometric interpretation of distance-based cuts and the repetitive nature of twostage stochastic programs, we introduce a tailored algorithm to further facilitate deriving these cuts. Our computational experiments on various benchmark problems illustrate effectiveness of deepest cuts in reducing both computation time and number of Benders iterations and producing high-quality bounds at early iterations.
Organization and Management Abstracts
Professor Maia Young
Title: “The Affective Revolution in Entrepreneurship: An Integrative Conceptual Review and Guidelines for Future Investigation”
Co-authors: Florencio Portocarerro (PhD Alumnus), Scott Newbert, and Lily Zhu (PhD Alumna)
Accepted at: Journal of Management (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: Entrepreneurial affect has emerged as a burgeoning area of study, with a wealth of articles demonstrating that affect, broadly conceptualized, plays an important part in entrepreneurial life. While a few affective phenomena, such as passion and positive and negative affect, are primarily driving the affective revolution in entrepreneurship, a wide range of additional forms of affect, from momentary feelings to enduring affective dispositions, have been found to influence entrepreneurs’ judgements, decision-making, attitudes, and behaviors in distinct parts of the entrepreneurial process. Moreover, entrepreneurs’ affective experiences and displays of these experiences influence entrepreneurial behaviors and investors’ decision-making. Although this is an exciting time for work on entrepreneurial affect, several theoretical and empirical inconsistencies impede further knowledge accumulation. To assess how and why affect is critical to entrepreneurship, to clarify the theoretical inconsistencies, and to provide an integrative framework, we conduct a systematic review of 276 published empirical and conceptual articles on entrepreneurial affect. In doing so, we analyze how various affective phenomena (e.g., emotions, moods, sentiments), along with their discrete forms (e.g., anger, grief, happiness), influence and are influenced by specific stages of the entrepreneurial process. We conclude that while this body of research confirms that entrepreneurship is an emotional endeavor, the collective approach has thus far obscured a more detailed and useful understanding of affect in each stage of the entrepreneurial process. We examine the theoretical and empirical approaches taken to date and lay out an agenda for future scholars, thus bolstering the affective revolution in entrepreneurship.
Strategy Abstracts
Professor Margarethe Wiersema
Title: “Dare to Fight? How Activist Hedge Funds’ Hostile Tactics Influence Target Firm Resistance”
Co-author: Haeyoung Koo (PhD Alumna)
Accepted at: Journal of Management (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: Hedge fund activism has become an integral part of publicly traded firms, and our paper adopts a behavioral lens to examine how the hostility of tactics employed by activist hedge funds may influence the response of target firms. Drawing on cognitive mechanisms and insights from interviews with investment professionals, we propose that activists’ use of hostile tactics may paradoxically trigger greater resistance from target firms. Specifically, we argue that management and the board may seek greater desire for control, and experience ego threat and heightened anxiety in the face of hostility, which increases target firm resistance. Using a sample of 731 activist hedge fund campaigns from 2002 to 2015, we find that target firms are more likely to resist when the activist hedge fund uses more hostile tactics. Further, our findings indicate that resistance towards hostile tactics increases when activist demands challenge the position of management or the board but is mitigated by a firm’s prior activism experience or boards with more directors that have experienced hostile campaigns.
Professor Margarethe Wiersema
Title: “Eyes on the Ball: Activist Campaigns and Management’s Response at the Operational Level”
Co-author: Razvan Lungeanu
Accepted at: Journal of Management (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: More than 45% of the S&P 500 have been the target of activist investors. As a major shareholder in the firms they target, activist investors’ campaigns raise concerns over the firm’s poor performance and pose a threat to management’s control over the firm. Prior research has found that activist campaigns have significant consequences in that management curtails long-term investments, divests businesses, and foregoes acquisitions. Strategic decisions at the corporate level,
however, do not provide insight as to whether activist investors motivate management to improve the operational competitiveness of the firm. Our study seeks to address whether activist campaigns succeed in motivating management to improve the firm’s operational competitiveness. This represents an important issue since the firm’s operational practices are essential to its competitiveness and performance. Our study proposes and finds that firms targeted by activist investors seek new ways by which to improve the firm’s operational efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, the management of target firms shift their emphasis to tactics that can improve the firm’s operations in the short-term. We use a measure of operational competitiveness that provides detail and granularity at a tactical level enabling us to compare and contrast how firms respond to activist investors at the operational level of the firm. Thus, our study provides important insights not previously found that activist campaigns motivate management to improve the firm’s operational competitiveness.
Professor Margarethe Wiersema
Title: “Corporate Short-termism: A Review and Research Agenda”
Co-author: Haeyoung Koo (PhD alumna), Yu Zhang, and Weiru Chen
Accepted at: Journal of Management (Journal on Financial Times Top 50 list)
Abstract: Corporate short-termism, defined as a managerial preference for the short term that undermines a firm’s long-term interests, has become a topic of global concern for governments, investors, and business leaders. In recent years, heightened capital market pressures to maximize shareholder value have intensified focus on the issue, raising concerns that the pursuit of short-term shareholder value may come at the expense of long-term prospects and corporate sustainability. Our review reveals that despite abundant research on short-termism, we have only a fragmented understanding of the factors driving this phenomenon and its consequences. The difficulty of operationalizing the construct and the various firm actions and outcomes examined has hindered consensus as to the specific antecedents and implications of managers’ preference for the short term. Our paper seeks to provide greater clarity on corporate short-termism and to develop a framework for understanding what motivates management to prioritize the short term over the long term and the firm-level consequences of related decisions. In doing so, we hope to advance our state of knowledge on this important issue and motivate scholars to more fully unpack the drivers and outcomes of corporate short-termism.
Awards and Honors
Professor Luyi Gui
Honorable mention, 2024 ISCOM (Institute of Supply Chain and Operations Management) Best Paper Award
Title: “Emission Reduction through Regulating Indirect Sources”
Co-authors: Shiliang Cui and Sai Zhao
Abstract: Emissions from diesel semi-trucks, such as nitrogen oxides, have contributed significantly to air pollution, prompting government intervention. However, directly regulating trucking companies’ diesel truck usage often falls outside the jurisdiction of local governments. A legislative alternative is to regulate other sectors within the local region that indirectly drive diesel truck usage, referred to as indirect emission sources. The first of such regulation is Southern California’s Rule 2305, the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (ISR), which holds warehouses accountable for the diesel truck visits to their facilities via a mitigation fee. The goal is to incentivize the adoption of electric semi-trucks and reduce air pollution. Motivated by this policy shift, we examine the effectiveness of the ISR, focusing on its environmental impact and the industry burden it imposes, compared to a hypothetical Direct Source Rule (DSR) that would regulate trucking companies directly. We develop game theory models to analyze the decisionmaking process of warehouses and trucking companies under both ISR and DSR. Our findings suggest that ISR has the potential to encourage greater adoption of electric semi-trucks while reducing the industry’s cost burden, particularly when mitigation fees for diesel truck trips are kept low. However, the current ISR practice of using mitigation fees to subsidize electric semi-truck investments for trucking companies may backfire, potentially hindering electric truck adoption. Factors including competition in the trucking sector and regional characteristics, such as truck trip distance distributions, can either exacerbate or alleviate these effects. Our results indicate that the ISR can be an effective tool for emissions control. However, governments must carefully consider potential unintended consequences when designing and implementing such policies. We further contextualize our findings using real warehouse data from Southern California.
PhD Student Jeesoo Kim Will Mitchell Dissertation Research Grant ($10,000)
Doctoral Dissertation Research Proposal: Behavioral, Cognitive, and Strategic Dynamics in Alliance Formation: Insights from the Biopharmaceutical and Medical Technology Industries
Doctoral Committee Chair: Professor Margarethe Wiersema Research Proposal: The biopharmaceutical and medical technology industries are among the most innovative globally, yet they heavily rely on external partnerships and acquisitions to sustain their innovation pipelines. Despite their critical role, little is known about how firms in these sectors evaluate partners and make strategic decisions. My dissertation addresses this gap by examining the cognitive and strategic factors that shape alliance and acquisition decision-making in biopharma and medtech.
The first paper investigates how social comparison and contract framing influence strategic alliance decisions in biopharma, focusing on how small venture firms evaluate and respond to contract terms offered by large pharmaceutical companies. The second paper explores the use of the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) in pharmaceutical alliances, analyzing the corporate governance factors that drive firms to exercise or forgo these strategic options under uncertainty. The third paper adopts a qualitative approach to uncover how medtech firms assess potential partners or acquisition targets, addressing a critical gap in the predominantly quantitative literature.
Together, these studies contribute to the strategic management literature by providing novel insights into the behavioral and governance mechanisms that underpin alliances and acquisitions in these highstakes industries. By illuminating the processes that guide partner evaluation and decision-making, this dissertation advances our understanding of how firms navigate uncertainty and complexity to sustain their innovative edge.
Illustrations by Emily Young ’20