All Publications
We conduct an experiment to examine how providing decision makers with
high versus low peer performance information influences choices between exploration and exploitation. Previous work on organization-level learning suggests that a high-performing peer would fuel exploration, whereas a low-performing peer would dampen it. In line with this, we find that individuals who receive information about a high-performing peer explore more than those who receive information about a low-performing peer. However, we also find that compared to individuals with a low tendency to self-enhance, individuals with a high tendency to self-enhance are less likely to explore when receiving information about a high-performing peer. In fact, these individuals explore at levels comparable to those who receive information about a low-performing peer. We explain this behavioral pattern by demonstrating that as individuals learn and improve, information about a high-performing peer increasingly results in mixed performance feedback; under these conditions of relative interpretive flexibility, exploration is moderated by decision makers’ tendency to self-enhance. When these individual dynamics are aggregated, our data suggest that an organization that provides peer performance information may experience either the same or less exploration than an organization that does not, with the exact difference depending on its proportion of high self-enhancers. These insights into the contingencies and aggregate effects of how individuals interpret and respond to peer performance information are particularly relevant given recent interest in designing organizations that shape employee behavior through the provision of feedback rather than through traditional instruments of coordination and control, such as incentives or hierarchy.
In this paper, we study how information asymmetries and specifically the opportunity to inaccurately report performance feedback in decentralized organizational structures influences exploration. In many organizations, exploration is characterized by a two-staged process, where a higher-level decision-maker selects a lower-level unit to engage in exploration efforts, and a lower-level unit reports back a performance outcome. Such decentralized structures are also prone to information asymmetries, which are generally seen as undesirable, and aimed to be reduced through monitoring. In this study, we provide experimental evidence that information asymmetries are not always undesirable for organizations and that monitoring can hinder exploration efforts in organizations. The key results from our two experimental studies are that, first, lower-level units that take advantage of information asymmetries and report performance outcomes inaccurately, explore more and experiment more with risky solutions. Second, at the higher level, monitoring, and the revelation of inaccurate reporting leads to the avoidance of particular units, less exploration and foregone gains of exploration in this domain. This is important as it enlarges our understanding on how decentralized structures can foster exploration – against the intuition – information asymmetries can be beneficial, and managers may rather accept them than trying to reduce them. These insights are particularly relevant considering recent interest in ‘flatter’ organizational structures with more decision-making authority to lower-level units and less control.
To assess the robustness and sensitivity of the findings in Delmas, Nairn-Brich, and Lim, we conduct a replication and an extension study. In the replication, we use their research design but analyze another time frame. In our extension, we furthermore expand the geographical scope, and use another carbon performance measure as well as a different set of control variables. We show that the finding that higher carbon emissions are associated with higher short-term financial performance is very robust. By contrast, we also find strong evidence for higher carbon emissions being associated with higher long-term financial performance. This outcome is supported by several supplementary analyses and robustness checks. We derive theoretical implications for the debate on tackling grand challenges. Since there seem to be negative financial performance implications for firms reducing carbon emissions, we highlight a clear need for further policy intervention to pave the way for a low-carbon economy.
In this paper, we examine how intra-organizational peer performance feedback influences exploration-exploitation decisions. Data from two behavioral experiments suggest that an agent’s propensity to explore is influenced not only by whether their peer performs better or worse but also by individual and situational factors that affect how peer performance feedback is interpreted. In particular, we report three main findings. First, we find that providing individuals with feedback from a high-performing peer leads to more exploration than feedback from a low-performing peer. Second, we find that this difference in behavior is driven by the subset of individuals who receive feedback from a high-performing peer who also have a low tendency to self-enhance. Third, we find that when the task environment is less ambiguous, feedback from a low-performing peer tends to curtail exploration; when the task environment is more ambiguous, this is no longer the case. Overall, our findings provide insight into the individual and situational contingencies of learning from performance feedback. They also suggest implications for organization design, which we address in our discussion section.
Organizations often respond in different ways to common external shocks. To advance theories on organizational adaptation and performance heterogeneity, it is essential to understand different reasons for different organizational responses. We examine how incumbents in carbon-intensive industries adapt to heightened environmental pressure to reduce carbon emissions. Based on a review of the literature, we propose three dimensions along which diverse organizational responses can be efficiently mapped out: goal, timing, and scope. Building on our proposed dimensions, we develop a typology of five different organizational responses. With this, we show that organizational responses are more diverse than a one-dimensional scale could show but that the heterogeneity is somehow limited as the positions on the dimensions are not independent but correlated. To understand this observed limited heterogeneity, we proceed by identifying reasons behind different organizational responses. Furthermore, we discuss the theoretical implications of our findings for research on organizational adaptation and sustainability.
Understanding how novel ideas are evaluated and recognized is important for organizational prosperity. A systematic evaluative bias against novel options after a negative experience - known as the ‘hot stove effect’ - may prevent organizations from engaging in enough explorations to identify novel ideas. We show that the adverse consequences of the hot-stove effect can be reduced by manipulating how novel options are categorized. The core of our mechanism is that categorization of options in more categories reduces the generalization of negative experience to other options, whereas categorization in fewer options favors such generalization. We develop predictions based on a computational model and test these in a behavioral experiment (N=302). The task environment is a setting in which participants decide between a known ‘status quo’ option and six unknown, novel options. Participants are randomly allocated into three conditions that vary in terms of the number of categories to which the novel options belong. If the six novel options belong to six distinct categories, the propensity to explore is significantly higher than when options belong to fewer categories. When all novel options belong to the same category, participant are most likely to avoid exploration. Our findings suggests new ways managers could favor, or prevent, exploration of novel options by organizational members."
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to systematise the current state of research on the association between companies’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement and financial analysts’ company assessment. Additionally, it aims to identify fruitful directions for future research that contribute to a further exploration of the link between CSR and financial analysts.
Design/methodology/approach
This study reviews and synthesises existing research on CSR and financial analysts. Based on the research question, “What is the relationship between CSR engagement and financial analysts’ metrics?,” the authors conduct a systematic literature review. The authors search three major databases and use an extensive search term to ensure exhaustive coverage of the field. The paper then systemises the current state of research and identifies knowledge gaps and potential directions for future research.
Findings
The review of existing research shows that several studies confirm a positive link between CSR performance and analyst coverage, suggesting that external monitoring through analysts incentivises companies to enhance their CSR engagement. Further, results indicate that a company’s involvement in “sin” industries is linked to lower analyst coverage. Besides, a higher level of CSR disclosure is positively associated with analyst forecast accuracy, thus indicating that the provision of CSR-related information is linked to an enhanced information environment. High levels of CSR performance are associated with more positive recommendations from analysts. However, recent surveys and interview studies on analysts’ perceptions of CSR fail to uniformly support an increasing interest in CSR.
Research limitations/implications
For a better understanding of the link between CSR engagement and financial analysts, two fruitful directions for future research are observed. First, future research designs should clearly differentiate between CSR disclosure and CSR performance and take account of interdependencies between them. Second, studies should address behavioural insights into how analysts process information and the influence of individual analyst characteristics on the link between CSR engagement and an analyst’s assessment of a company.
Originality/value
This study is the first to review the literature on the relationship between CSR and financial analysts. The association between CSR and financial analysts is particularly interesting given the pivotal role financial analysts play as information intermediaries in financial markets. This study delivers an in-depth understanding of existing studies and their theoretical underpinnings. Based on the existing literature, this paper develops innovative directions for future research.
Founded in 1940, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) is a private charitable foundation endowed with John D. Rockefeller’s heritage made in the fossil fuel sector from so called “Big Oil” companies. While it is RBF’s mission to advance social change and to contribute to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world, in 2014 the fund was still invested in fossil fuels – implying a disconnect between the fund’s investment strategy and the commitment to tackling climate change. Due to this disconnection and the recent emergence of the fossil fuel divestment movement in society, RBF considered withdrawing all funds from fossil fuel investments.
Today, Stephen Heintz, president of RBF, set up a board meeting with all officers and trustees of RBF to discuss and decide whether the fund should fully divest from the fossil fuel industry. Given the (historic) importance of fossil fuel to the Rockefeller fortune, he was faced with a symbolic as well as fateful decision for RBF. This decision process represented a complex and multifaceted challenge: RBF’s moral obligation of preventing climate change and the economic duty as an institutional investor to preserve and increase endowment required balance. Stephen Heintz knew that in order to make a decision he would have to not only use solid financial calculations but also engage in extensive dialogue with all RBF relevant stakeholders.
Working on this case, students will be challenged to analyze investment performance from a financial as well as sustainability perspective, bring together arguments for and against divestment, and align conflicting interests through stakeholder dialogue.
