Future of Work &amp; Leadership - Costello

Costello Research Recruiting

Costello Research Health & Well-being at Work

The work-from-home blues have a secret source: nostalgia

Jennifer Anzaldi — Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:25:23 +0000

The work-from-home blues have a secret source: nostalgia Jennifer Anzaldi Thu, 09/19/2024 - 10:25

For at least two years, CEOs have been trying to bring employees back to the office, citing remote work’s supposed negative effects on productivity, morale, and creative collaboration. Managers, we’re told, are having a hard time monitoring and motivating dispersed teams. But what if bringing employees back to the office won’t put the genie back in the bottle?

Kevin Rockmann, professor of management at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, argues that the furor over remote work masks deeper cultural issues at play in many organizations. This cultural malaise has employees pining for an imagined past where they felt grounded and connected with their colleagues. In short, remote workers aren’t unmanageable—they’re suffering from pangs of nostalgia.

Kevin Rockmann

Rockmann’s recently published research paper in Journal of Management (co-authored by Jessica Methot of Rutgers University and Emily Rosado-Solomon of Babson University) documents the results of surveys conducted during the height of Covid (September 2020). The thrice-daily surveys were delivered over a two-week period to 110 full-time professionals. Respondents were asked to report on their feelings of nostalgia, as well as emotional coping strategies, task performance, and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g. withholding support from colleagues and stealing time from their employer).

The overwhelming majority of participants (98 out of 110) admitted to experiencing nostalgia for life before Covid. And these feelings could have either positive or negative outcomes, depending on how the respondents dealt with them. Rockmann points to two pathways that showed up across the surveys as a whole, which he labels “approach” and “avoid.”

One way respondents reacted to nostalgia was to use so-called “cognitive change” strategies, which help regulate emotions through shifts in perspective. For example, someone feeling sad about being trapped at home during the pandemic could think to themselves, “It could be so much worse. At least I don’t have Covid like so many others.” These strategies seemed to evoke empathetic responses, leading the survey participants to reach out to colleagues to check in or offer assistance.

Equally prevalent in Rockmann’s results, however, was a much darker pathway. Instead of reaching out to others in response to nostalgia, respondents tended to turn inward in an attempt to minimize the emotional discomfort. Psychological researchers call this sort of reaction “attentional deployment.” “It’s a defense mechanism whereby you don’t feel you have the means to really connect with others, so you leverage your attention away from the source of pain,” Rockmann explains. This pathway led to incidents of “acting out”—the above-mentioned counterproductive work behaviors.

Rockmann says these Covid-era findings remain relevant for at least two reasons. First, survey respondents’ written comments sound like they could have been written yesterday, rather than four years ago. Common nostalgic themes revolved around co-workers, the structure of co-located work, etc.—all oft-heard plaints of remote workers in 2024. Second, the normalization of remote work well predated Covid—as Rockmann’s past research on the topic has documented. Covid accelerated an inevitable transition that was already well underway. Therefore, workers of a certain age would likely be feeling some nostalgia, even if there had never been a Covid pandemic.

“While return-to-office may make sense for some companies, I would emphasize that nostalgia cannot be fixed that way. Nostalgia is about longing for the past—or, more accurately, longing for a return to how we remember the past, usually through rose-colored lenses.”

How can organizations help employees conquer nostalgia, or at least encourage healthier ways of coping with nostalgia? The obvious answer might be what CEOs are trying to do—end remote work altogether. “While return-to-office may make sense for some companies, I would emphasize that nostalgia cannot be fixed that way. Nostalgia is about longing for the past—or, more accurately, longing for a return to how we remember the past, usually through rose-colored lenses,” Rockmann says.

Any political demagogue will tell you that people are most susceptible to nostalgia when they feel isolated and afraid. The fact that nostalgia is so widespread in today’s workplace would seem to confirm Rockmann’s past research showing how organizational cultures fail to promote positive relationships among employees.

Combating the nostalgia epidemic will require a cultural reset for many organizations. “Managers will need to engage much more closely with employees, asking sensitive questions (e.g. “What do you miss about working here before Covid?”) and co-creating individualized solutions to help employees fully adjust to the major changes in their working environment,” Rockmann says.

Explore research at Costello College of Business

In This Story

Kevin Rockmann

Topics

Costello Research Managing Change

Costello Research Health & Well-being at Work

Costello Research Social Influence

When expressing gratitude, it’s all in the timing

Jennifer Anzaldi — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 14:42:32 +0000

When expressing gratitude, it’s all in the timing Jennifer Anzaldi Wed, 09/04/2024 - 10:42

Thanks so much for reading this article all the way to the end! No, that wasn’t an editorial error. It’s a savvy managerial motivation strategy lurking somewhere in almost every employee’s inbox or Slack channel.

Mandy O’Neill, an associate professor of management at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, has discovered a potential new addition to the annals of managerial motivation techniques: anticipatory gratitude.

Mandy O'Neill

We all know that thanking people for a job well-done, or a much-needed favor, is an effective form of positive reinforcement. Psychology researchers classify gratitude as a “socially engaging emotion” that promotes prosocial behavior and strong interpersonal relationships. In the course of exploring how employees cope with high-stress or frustrating work situations, O’Neill and her co-author Hooria Jazaieri of Santa Clara University discovered an interesting wrinkle in what we thought we knew about this popular emotion: Gratitude can be used as a form of emotion regulation and, when expressed ahead of time instead of after the fact, can produce that extra “oomph” when it comes to employee resilience and persistence.

Their paper is in press at Academy of Management Discoveries.

The researchers stumbled upon the power of anticipatory gratitude while researching organizational culture and change within the intensive care units of a leading U.S. hospital. It’s difficult to imagine a more gut-wrenching, high-stakes work environment: The ICU units in question receive what one employee called “the sickest of the sickest” from throughout the region. To decompress and process their emotions after especially difficult shifts, employees routinely emailed the group using an internal listserv. O’Neill and Jazaieri were forwarded four years’ worth of messages, which they analyzed with the help of direct experience gained from extensive site visits to the hospital.

In addition to writing heartfelt outpourings of post facto gratitude, ICU colleagues thanked one another for rising to occasions that had not yet occurred. Some of these emails were pre-emptively apologetic (“I may have to take a day or two off from time to time…Thank you for your patience and understanding”). Others seemed to function as pep talks, inspiring teams to keep up the good work (“Thank you…for bringing your a-game to work every day”).

As O’Neill describes it, “The ‘thanks in advance’ phenomenon involves an awareness that you’re going to be annoyed or upset by what I’m asking you to do, so I infuse you with the positivity of that feeling you get when someone expresses gratitude to you. Think about it as an emotional buffer. It helps with the inevitable distress of the task that’s going to happen later. It makes those negative emotions less salient, less powerful, and less insidious.”

The researchers launched several follow-up studies to learn more about the effects of anticipatory gratitude. They chose a context—Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) gig-work platform—that was in many ways the polar opposite of the ICU. “You go from the ultimate interdependent work environment to the ultimate transactional work environment,” O’Neill explains.

“The ‘thanks in advance’ phenomenon involves an awareness that you’re going to be annoyed or upset by what I’m asking you to do, so I infuse you with the positivity of that feeling you get when someone expresses gratitude to you. Think about it as an emotional buffer."

The MTurk workers were assigned to solve extremely difficult puzzles. After completing the paid task, they received negative feedback about their performance and were offered the opportunity to do additional puzzles without being paid. MTurkers who had seen a message of gratitude before the main task voluntarily took on significantly more unpaid work than those who received a similar message after the paid exercise.

“What’s so compelling and surprising for us is that anyone who does work with experienced online gig worker populations knows it’s nearly impossible to induce workers to go beyond their assignment, even by 30 extra seconds, which is about what we were asking for,” O’Neill says.

Questionnaires administered during the study revealed that anticipatory gratitude enhanced feelings of communal self-worth, which contributed to the participant’s resilience, that is, their ability to “bounce back” after the initial failure. In a third study, the researchers found anticipatory gratitude was better than a related positive affect—anticipatory hope—at motivating MTurkers to persevere at (i.e., spend more time on) a different set of challenging puzzles.

At this point, the potential for managerial manipulation should be crystal clear. Indeed, it was evident even to some of the gig workers, who wrote private messages such as, “It may be partial trickery for academic purposes but it was still nice to hear.”

"Gratitude can’t be a substitute for fair pay and decent work conditions...But our findings are clear: anticipatory gratitude works; it is effective.”

For O’Neill, these findings show that gratitude is more complicated than we previously thought. “This paper is one of the very few to show that gratitude isn’t always authentic and prosocial. It can be used strategically, especially for managers,” she says.

Sincerity and strategy are not mutually exclusive. Empathic managers whose feelings of gratitude are so strong that they have to be expressed beforehand could still be taking advantage of the “thanks in advance” phenomenon.

“In all organizations, you need people to stick with difficult or thankless or boring tasks. The challenge, of course, is how to do so ethically. Gratitude can’t be a substitute for fair pay and decent work conditions, for example. But our findings are clear: anticipatory gratitude works; it is effective,” O’Neill says.

Explore Costello College of Business graduate education programs

In This Story

Olivia (Mandy) O'Neill

Scared to negotiate job offers? Do it anyway. Here’s why.

Jennifer Anzaldi — Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:17:48 +0000

Scared to negotiate job offers? Do it anyway. Here’s why. Jennifer Anzaldi Tue, 07/16/2024 - 10:17

Getting a job offer can be a joyful experience. Often, however, the elation quickly gives way to a state of anxiety, as candidates agonize over whether to accept the terms on the table, or negotiate for better ones. After all, it’s commonly believed that job candidates who negotiate, risk losing the opportunity.

Einav Hart

Einav Hart, assistant professor of management at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, challenges that assumption in a recent research paper for Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Her findings suggest that the expected worst-case scenario—having a job offer rescinded—may be a much more remote possibility than most job candidates believe.

The paper was co-authored by Julia Bear of Stony Brook University and Zhiying (Bella) Ren of University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers conducted seven studies involving more than 3,000 participants. To start with, they surveyed job candidates, hiring managers, and experienced professionals. These surveys showed that job candidates thought it highly likely that negotiating would lose them the job offer, while managers took a more flexible view. The hiring managers reported extending an average of 26.9 job offers during their careers, only 1.73 of which were withdrawn after a candidate negotiated.

In subsequent studies using in-person and online negotiations, Hart and her co-authors found that even taking on an imaginary role changes how one views the negotiation and its risks. They randomly assigned participants to play either a “job candidate” or a “hiring manager,” with real money at stake based on any agreed-upon job offer.

The researchers found that two psychological mechanisms were particularly relevant to explain job candidates’ exaggerated risk estimation: zero-sum perceptions, or the idea that parties in a negotiation are fighting over a fixed and finite resource, and power perceptions, i.e., how much candidates felt they had the ability to influence the hiring manager. Moreover, because of their concern about losing the deal, nearly half the candidates chose to accept the offer as is and not to negotiate.

All else being equal, candidates tended to take a much more competitive (i.e., zero-sum) view of negotiations and a less optimistic view of their power than did the “managers.” This may help explain why so many of us shy away from bargaining for better job offers, to our own detriment.

Hart says that “negotiating is not just zero-sum. Besides negotiating salary, maybe you care more about teleworking than a small signing bonus. The hiring manager might really appreciate the savings and be flexible about how often you come into the office. Thus, this negotiation (and many others) can have a win-win, mutually beneficial solution.”

Indeed, candidates primed to consider negotiation as a potential win-win interaction (as opposed to zero-sum) were less likely to fear losing the deal entirely, and by extension to forgo negotiations. Likewise, candidates primed to have higher power perception were less concerned about jeopardizing a deal and less likely to forgo negotiation. However, even with low zero-sum or power perceptions, candidates still overestimated their risk of losing the deal.

“Besides negotiating salary, maybe you care more about teleworking than a small signing bonus. The hiring manager might really appreciate the savings and be flexible about how often you come into the office. Thus, this negotiation (and many others) can have a win-win, mutually beneficial solution.” —Einav Hart

At the same time, Hart’s prior work suggests that negotiation is a decision that should be made carefully by each party. A previous paper introduced the concept of “Economic Relevance of Relational Outcomes” (ERRO), which points to the fact that there is often a long-term financial advantage in preserving strong relationships, over and above incremental gains to be won in any one negotiation.

Hart says, “Consider negotiating for a babysitter’s rate. What use is negotiating for a great deal on the rate if the babysitter feels bullied in the negotiation and is not excited to take care of your kids?”

Negotiating a job offer is tough and there is a legitimate risk that negotiating can jeopardize the deal. However, Hart’s research suggests that job candidates overestimate this risk and can often obtain better outcomes through negotiating a job offer—at least if they preserve a good relationship.

Looking for more advice? Check out Career Services!

In This Story

Einav Hart

Topics

Costello Research Recruiting

Costello Research Evaluating Performance

Women’s empowerment in the workplace starts with smarter networking

Colleen Rich — Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:13:51 +0000

Women’s empowerment in the workplace starts with smarter networking Colleen Rich Mon, 03/11/2024 - 13:13

Women’s History Month offers a chance to examine the gender leadership gap. According to a 2022 World Economic Forum report, just 31% of global leadership roles are held by women.

Sarah Wittman. Photo provided

Networking is one effective way to bridge the gap, but research shows that women are at an unfair disadvantage in this area. Sarah Wittman, an assistant professor of management at Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, unpacks this complex problem and proposes some potential research-based solutions.

Why is it important for women to network as much—and as strategically—as men?

To rise to the top, you have to be known and known of. You have to have social capital—and a social network that makes a difference. Of course, nobody likes to be thought of as “that person”: the person who uses other people for their own advancement. Yet research suggests that in professional networks women are less likely than men to network instrumentally, accumulate instrumental ties and, thus, less likely to have within their networks the powerful people who can help them advance and get things done. Over time, women’s network deficits accumulate: especially in an age of online social media including LinkedIn, if you didn’t connect with colleagues in your last job, you likely aren’t connecting this job. And those people are the ones who know you and could help you land your next job.

What, then, can women do to build useful career networks?

One piece of advice is, of course, to change your mentality—so that networking becomes relationship-building not just contact-accumulation. That fits better with what is expected of women and is less likely to receive backlash. Where networking is “just” relationship-building, it becomes less intimidating and, quite frankly, less grossly utilitarian. Especially when you’re not needing anything now, you can creatively focus on what you might give. Rather than thinking about the resources you might need, think about what resources you might represent for others. The universe repays, and having established contacts when you do need to leverage them is invaluable.

Second, make network-building easy on yourself. Just do it. LinkedIn particularly and other similar online social media are amazing tools because they are both personal and surprisingly impersonal. These days, people link with people they don’t even actually know—but perceive as working in the same industry, or in a relevant function. Linking with those possibly relevant others will not only be low risk (the “no,” if there is one, doesn’t come face-to-face), but where you engage with the platform, the professional content that you produce will allow you and your resources to become known, and known of, across your contacts’ feeds.

It’s easier to start with networks that you legitimately belong to alumni of – your high school, university, or sorority, and people who share some element of your professional past or present (ex- or present colleagues). You never know who is doing what, and how that might be related to your own career.

Unbeknownst to you, you may already have valuable social capital at your fingertips, in so-called “multiplex” ties—ones that can serve multiple ends. Do you know what your neighbors do for work? What about your children’s friends’ parents? Or your spouse’s co-workers’ spouses (or children)? But, again, the more of a decent human being you are in these relationships, the more likely they might be willing to provide professional value as well.

So the networking gap boils down to women being “too nice,” not aggressive enough to put themselves out there?

No! Scholars have written extensively on the so-called “double-bind” for women, especially those in leadership positions. Research shows that—regardless of what they do—they will be judged negatively based on warmth versus competence. Too nice? Not smart, and disrespected. Too strategic? Cold and conniving, and disliked. This goes for networking, too. Women who “reach for the top” in their networking are not seen as team players (violating feminine norms of communalism) and may suffer a status penalty versus women who have less instrumental networks. But women who don’t have those instrumental ties aren’t able to advance.

“Fixing women” is not the answer. In the C-suite, empowering words for women must be matched by action. Senior leaders must be ready to appoint capable and deserving women to positions of organizational relevance.

Closer to home, men who love women and have seen women’s challenges firsthand tend to be some of our biggest allies. CEOs with daughters, for example, are more likely to have women join their boards. Men: Understand that the women whose advancement you empower today will—en masse—be the role models that pave the way for the advancement of your own daughters, nieces, and granddaughters.

Topics

Costello Research Evaluating Performance

Costello College of Business

Women's History Month

networking

Two �鶹��Ƶ professors receive NSF grant to study wearables and inclusive workplaces

Marianne Klinker — Wed, 11 Oct 2023 14:35:55 +0000

Two �鶹��Ƶ professors receive NSF grant to study wearables and inclusive workplaces Marianne Klinker Wed, 10/11/2023 - 10:35

Can wearable tech resolve the crisis of underemployment among neurodiverse individuals? A multidisciplinary �鶹��Ƶ research team is about to embark on a major study to find out.

Two �鶹��Ƶ professors have been awarded a $1.87 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop wearable technology designed to help neurodiverse individuals succeed in the workforce.

Sarah Wittman

Sarah Wittman, assistant professor of management at the School of Business, and Vivian Genaro Motti, associate professor of information sciences and technology at the College of Engineering and Computing, will carry out a series of laboratory studies as well as a field study seeking to “support job tasks with a personalized wearable design to make the future of work more inclusive and equitable for neurodiverse adults.”

Wittman and Motti’s research began with the recognition that while many neurodiverse people are eager for employment and fully capable of performing well at work, the routines, expectations, and atmosphere of the contemporary workplace do not always accommodate their needs. Business environments can present all sorts of stressors—sensory, social, organizational—that can affect the productivity and mental health of neurodiverse individuals. Therefore, the extremely high rate of unemployment (up to 85%) among neurodiverse adults should be seen as an equity issue, rather than a reflection of ability or fitness to work. Wearables can contribute to resolving these inequities, helping users adjust to difficulties in their environment by, for example, reminding them to take a short break or do breathing exercises at moments of peak stress (indicated by an increase in their heart rates).

Vivian Genaro Motti

The concept behind the grant originated in 2017, with Motti’s contribution to developing WELI, a smartwatch application designed to assist students in �鶹��Ƶ LIFE, a four-year program for neurodiverse young adults combining postsecondary coursework and employment opportunities in a supportive environment. The WELI project was funded as part of a three-year grant from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR).

After WELI showed impressive results in a field study spanning the entire 2017-18 academic year, and following NIDILRR recommendations, the research team expanded the scope of the project beyond the college campus. Motti started to investigate how such technology could be adapted for the workforce. She joined forces with Wittman, a widely published management scholar specializing in work/life transitions.

The pair set out to better understand the pain points neurodiverse individuals face at work. Supported by seed funding from the Institute for Digital Innovation (IDIA) and the work of PhD student Niloofar Kalantari, who scoured Reddit and other online forums where neurodiverse people were posting about their workplace travails. Their data analysis revealed a wide range of challenges, with a high degree of variation correlated to different types of neurodiversity (ADHD, autism spectrum, Down syndrome, etc.). This confirmed their hypothesis that a one-size-fits-all wearable solution is not viable; instead, they began to pursue interventions tailored to individual user needs and specific segments of the neurodiverse population.

The four-year NSF project begins in January 2024. In the research studies planned, the PIs will recruit a large sample of adults with ADHD and those on the autism spectrum, working, for example, as stockers and order-fillers in the retail industry (or whose work might see them doing tasks with similar hand movements). Through a series of laboratory experiments, Motti and Wittman will refine the wearable technology and assess its positive impact upon both task-based performance and user well-being. Finally, they will launch a three-week field study intended to “test real-world efficacy and build guidelines around work times, tasks, and spaces for this technology”.

Beyond making life easier for neurodiverse individuals in the workplace, Motti and Wittman believe that their interventions will generate useful data for fuelling the ongoing push for more inclusive working environments. If successful, their wearable application will conclusively demonstrate the immense value that neurodiverse individuals bring to the labor force, while educating future researchers and employers on how best to foster inclusive work environments that can unlock that value for the benefit of all.

More School of Business Faculty Research

Support the �鶹��Ƶ Nation

In This Story

Sarah Wittman

Vivian Genaro Motti

What’s worse than a ‘toxic’ workplace? One that gaslights employees

Marianne Klinker — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:15:18 +0000

What’s worse than a ‘toxic’ workplace? One that gaslights employees Marianne Klinker Mon, 09/11/2023 - 15:15

When it comes to relationships between co-workers, organizations’ stated priorities must match what’s happening under the hood.

These days, we hear a lot about “toxic bosses,” “toxic companies,” and the like. It’s easy to forget that non-toxicity is not all we want from an employer. If we’re really honest, most of us want to be part of an organization where working relationships are consistently healthy and supportive. Our dream company would also be a place where advancement opportunities were available to all, not only those who regularly have lunch or go golfing with the right people.

It might not shock you to learn that few companies have fully achieved this sort of actively anti-toxic as opposed to superficially non-toxic working culture. Those that have, though, tend to be more resilient when crisis hits, according to Kevin Rockmann, professor of management at �鶹��Ƶ School of Business.

Kevin Rockmann

“If even one person is an isolate, that’s a problem,” Rockmann says. “That’s information you’re not benefiting from…It’s not about everybody being best friends, it’s just about having productive working relationships that are characterized by respect, so that when the [expletive] hits the fan, people are going to step up.”

In a recently published paper for Strategic Organization, Rockmann and co-author Caroline A. Bartel (of University of Texas-Austin) theorize that such working cultures require concerted and sustained attention at all organizational levels—especially the top. Unstinting focus from above spurs the creation of structures and practices for supporting positive interpersonal relationships, which the paper terms “systems for relational advocacy.”

Rockmann’s theory adopts the attention-based view of the firm as an interpretive framework for organizational activity, as opposed to its chief competitor, the resource-based view. While the latter, according to Rockmann, centers on “the resources that an organization has or can access,” the former recognizes that “Resources are important, but it’s really about how we leverage those resources. What are organizational leaders paying attention to?” His paper forms part of a special issue of Strategic Organization devoted to the attention-based view.

Outside of relational advocacy—which relatively few firms actually practice—the paper identifies two main types of relational systems, reflecting different ways senior leaders can manage their attention.

Relational antipathy describes organizations that have made a strategic decision to deprioritize relationship-building among employees. This may be because senior leaders believe that a culture of competition rather than cooperation would be better for their firm, or because the business model is thought to lend itself to more transactional relationships (e.g. gig economy start-ups). In any case, Rockmann emphasizes that relational antipathy can be a workable system, especially when characterized by fairness as opposed to exploitation.

Rockmann reserves his strongest criticism for systems of relational indifference, where lip service may be paid to the importance of positive relationships (“we care about everyone!”), but senior leaders do not allocate the attention needed to create and maintain those relationships long-term.

“I was talking to an HR person at this company, who said, ‘We started this awards program to recognize employees who helped each other out.’ I asked them, ‘That’s great, so how many people are getting awards?’ They said ‘Well, no one’s been getting the awards recently. We keep forgetting to send the announcement out and the rewards behind it are pretty minimal.'”

To Rockmann, this is a quintessential example of the dangers of relational indifference because it shows how espoused good intentions become mere gaslighting without organizational follow-through. “Nobody was told that part of their job evaluation that year was to make sure they do that awards program,” he explains. “What could have been a way to bring people closer together and incentivize stronger relational connections falls by the wayside. And that weakens the organization, because relationships are how we’re going to solve crises.”

Instead of a tightly woven, resilient network of relationships, relationally indifferent organizations are susceptible to cliquishness and a social order split into in-groups and out-groups. As with any laissez-faire system, the concentration of capital—in this case, social capital—is much less democratic. This can torpedo morale throughout the organization, as mutual resentment and incomprehension sets in among outsiders and insiders.

Due to these dynamics, leaders of relationally indifferent organizations cannot necessarily trust what their own employees are telling them. “Typically, what happens is you do a survey and the people that feel like they aren’t going to be listened to don’t fill it out. And so you get results that are positive or very positive, and you think, well, our workplace is great.”

Rockmann therefore advises that leaders should “realize that they are products of the clique-ish system, so they need objective data. Be willing to listen to ombuds or consulting companies who come in to assess your workforce.”

If they find there’s a need to move from relational indifference to relational advocacy, what should leaders pay attention to first? “To me, the lowest-hanging fruit are the job descriptions. Put in the manager’s job description that part of their incentive is how well-connected their people are. Put in the employee's job description that ‘part of your job is helping other people do theirs’.

“A lot of people are not intrinsically motivated to form supportive working relationships,” Rockmann summarizes. “So if they’re not relationally motivated, you have to be explicit.”

Topics

Strategy - Costello

More School of Business Faculty Research

Are there upsides to “overboarding”?
July 14, 2025
“Doing well by doing good”? There’s a framework for that
July 2, 2025
In the workplace, relationships equal reality
May 28, 2025
Why it doesn’t—and shouldn’t—always pay to be a super-successful CEO
May 7, 2025
Study: Left-handed CEOs are more innovative
April 29, 2025

In This Story

Kevin Rockmann

�鶹��Ƶ professor contributes to groundbreaking mega-study in behavioral economics

Marianne Klinker — Wed, 09 Aug 2023 13:44:11 +0000

�鶹��Ƶ professor contributes to groundbreaking mega-study in behavioral economics Marianne Klinker Wed, 08/09/2023 - 09:44

A new "mega-study" consisting of dozens of simultaneous, independently designed experiments–shows that competitions have no automatic impact on our morality.

Academic research is tapping into the power of the crowd, thanks to an emerging paradigm known as the “mega-study.” Instead of one experimental design with a single set of parameters, mega-studies utilize a diverse array of simultaneous studies submitted by independent research teams, with a shared research question and participant pool.

In addition to efficiencies of scale, mega-studies can help scholars more quickly come to grips with the slippery issue of generalizability–i.e., the degree to which findings in one context apply to other contexts. For example, something that motivates people to do one prosocial behavior (e.g., recycling) might be different from what motivates people to do another prosocial behavior (e.g., donating to charity). Observing the full range of results across dozens of studies provides a clearer sense of how different environmental conditions may affect research outcomes.

The mega-study model is ideal for the field of behavioral economics, which explores how various factors in the world around us influence our daily decision-making. Human behavior, after all, is extremely complicated and changeable.

Einav Hart

Einav Hart, an assistant professor of management at �鶹��Ƶ School of Business, participated in the first-ever crowdsourced mega-study in behavioral economics, recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Hart’s experimental design was one of 45 selected for the mega-study. The broad research question was “Does competition erode, promote or not affect moral behavior?”

The mega-study was conducted to better understand and reconcile previous findings about the relationship between competition and moral behaviors. Previous (individual) studies have yielded mixed results. While some studies show that competition promotes moral behaviors such as trust and reciprocity, others point to a moral erosion.

In the mega-study, 18,123 online participants were randomly assigned to the 45 research designs. Notably, the 45 experiments were quite eclectic in their interpretations of “competition” and “moral behavior”. One research team, for instance, proposed a game in which participants solved puzzles either in or out of a competitive scenario, and were asked to self-report their performance. In this case, the honesty or dishonesty of their self-reported scores was used to measure “moral behavior”. Another proposed design was an online game in which an “investor” granted points to an “investee”, who could then choose whether or not to return the favor.

The pooled data from all 45 experiments showed that competitive conditions led to a minor decline in participants’ moral behavior. However, the size of the decline varied considerably from study to study. Further analysis revealed that the majority of the variance was due to the design differences among the 45 experiments.

The authors conclude that when it comes to broad research questions that admit a wide range of interpretations, there may be limitations to what a single study with a specific context–even one with a very large sample size–can reveal. Hart says, “This shows that in any individual study, you could observe very different results even with the same ‘ground truth,’ and this variance is largely dependent on how competition and moral behavior are operationalized.” In these cases, true generalizability may arise only from a greater diversity of experimental approaches, such as the mega-study and other crowdsourced research paradigms. As the PNAS paper states, “Our findings provide an argument for moving toward much larger data collections and more team science.”

Topics

Costello Research Data Analytics

Costello Research Competitive Strategy

A.I. & Innovation - Costello

School of Business Faculty Research

More School of Business News

MS in Accounting student leader receives PCAOB Scholarship
July 29, 2025
Costello MBA students are turning their ideas into successful companies
July 18, 2025
Are there upsides to “overboarding”?
July 14, 2025
“Doing well by doing good”? There’s a framework for that
July 2, 2025
Brett Josephson’s GovCon research honored with coveted award
June 16, 2025

In This Story

Einav Hart

Elevating impact through innovative research partnerships

Marianne Klinker — Fri, 21 Jul 2023 19:27:11 +0000

Elevating impact through innovative research partnerships Marianne Klinker Fri, 07/21/2023 - 15:27

�鶹��Ƶ School of Business boasts more than 60 full-time, research-active faculty across the accounting, finance, information systems and operations management, management, and marketing areas. In addition to pursuing research questions within their area of specialty, many School of Business scholars team up with peers from other disciplines to tackle complex societal problems.

These include so-called “wicked problems”, e.g. climate change and inequality, that require coordinated interventions because of their multifaceted nature.

Rich Klimoski, School of Business associate dean for research, says, “Business schools do in fact have multidisciplinary roots and are often composed of faculty that can apply expertise from diverse areas of study, including economics, mathematics, statistics, psychology, sociology, law, and others.

“Moreover, because big societal and economic challenges and opportunities are multidisciplinary in nature, business schools are uniquely prepared to contribute to understanding and solving these problems via research.”

Here are just a few examples of how SBUS professors are elevating their real-world impact through multidisciplinary collaboration.

J.P. Auffret

J.P. Auffret directs research partnerships for the School of Business, and the Center for Assurance Research and Engineering (CARE), housed in the College of Engineering and Computing. He will also co-lead (with computer science professor Amarda Shehu) the future Center for Excellence in Government Cybersecurity Risk Management and Resilience, which was founded with significant support from U.S. Representative Gerry Connolly, whose congressional district includes Fairfax, Virginia.

To be headquartered in �鶹��Ƶ Square, this Center-to-be will support and advance cybersecurity leadership and governance across the U.S. federal government by educating executives and middle managers, acting as a strategic partner in cybersecurity and IT modernization efforts, translating state-of-the-art research into federal government practice, collating and disseminating best practices for cybersecurity, and fostering cybersecurity organizational capacity.

Additionally, Auffret is furthering his long-standing local government cybersecurity partnering initiative which originally started as a National Science Foundation project with Virginia Tech professor Angelos Stavrou. As he explains, “Many local governments are quite small, and have limited budgets and resources while facing many of the same cybersecurity technology and organizational challenges as larger local governments. Partnering between local governments and with the states provides a means for enhancing cybersecurity capabilities." 

Lei Gao

Lei Gao, an associate professor of finance, contributes to several multidisciplinary research projects at various funding stages. One proposal, aimed at curbing gun violence, has Gao working alongside researchers from the fields of computer science, statistics and criminology. The team intends to use machine learning and other advanced technologies to discover leading indicators of mass shootings. Gao’s role relates to the economic piece of the puzzle, exploring questions such as whether localized or national economic downturns may be a precursor to mass shootings. “We might be able to provide some insights or early warnings for law enforcement to detect or forecast so that they can go there earlier and try to prevent these tragedies,” Gao says. He is also interested in what happens after mass shootings occur. “When gun violence occurs in a particular area, it can significantly decrease the attractiveness of the area to new businesses and talented individuals, leading to reduced tax revenues and economic consequences. By quantifying these costs, the public can better understand the costs of inaction on gun violence,” Gao says.

Abhishek Ray

Abhishek Ray, an assistant professor of information systems, has teamed up with a �鶹��Ƶ economics professor on a project investigating the online news market. The proposal jumps off from the idea that while democracy depends upon a well-informed citizenry, the internet is known for shunting users into “echo chambers” that reinforce pre-existing political biases. Using innovative techniques from “complex systems science for investigating economic activities and cognition in markets”, Ray aims to show how competition within the news industry drives the political polarization of journalism, and how these shifting levels of bias affect reader engagement. “Digital news has impacted consumers’ political involvement and information-seeking more profoundly than other media,” Ray explains. “This project will design mitigating regulatory frameworks using economics, computational and cognitive science.”

Sarah Wittman

Sarah Wittman, an assistant professor of management, and faculty from �鶹��Ƶ’s Volgenau School of Engineering are developing wearable technologies to empower people with various types of neurodiversity–Autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, etc.–to thrive at work. The project focuses on the retail and hospitality industries, where employment opportunities for neurodiverse people abound. Yet aspects of working life, such as the need to interact with others and complete tasks in a specific order, are frequently problematic for many in these communities. Wearables provide real-time biometric monitoring and simple interventions–e.g., encouraging the wearer to take a five-minute break when their heart rate rises to indicate frustration or agitation. By helping remove obstacles to gainful employment, these devices would create greater financial and emotional independence for the neurodiverse population.

While not a complete list, these examples help illustrate how School of Business scholars are breaking siloes to address problems of national, if not global import. As Klimoski states, “I am absolutely convinced that the kinds of research that will have the greatest likelihood of making an impact upon the world will require the coordination and collaboration of multiple teams made up of researchers from many different disciplines.”

Topics

Finance - Costello

Costello Research Innovation Strategy