December 2nd: Wayne Crawford of the Department of Management
Title: The Longitudinal Effects of Network-Member Excision on Layoff Survivors’ Social Network Resource-Acquisition Strategies and Performance
Presenter: Wayne S. Crawford
When: Wednesday, December 2, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: via Microsoft Teams
Abstract: This study examines network change following a disruptive event in an American hotel firm—downsizing—whereby many employees are simultaneously eliminated from a network. Applying a resource- and network-evolution approach to longitudinal communication-network and employee-performance data, we examine how survivors develop revised resource-acquisition strategies while repositioning themselves after a disruptive event. Specifically, we find that disruption initiates a transitional period in which new tie-making logics, including seeking out ties with long-tenured employees and employees outside of one’s department, are utilized. This facilitates substantial gains in betweenness centrality for some survivors, and these gains are positively associated with long-term employee performance. We observed post-disruption network stabilization, where logics used for tie-making in the disruption period were abandoned, pre-disruption logics were resumed, and betweenness centrality remained relatively constant. We use exponential random graph models to show how the network changed and latent change score modeling to examine whether changes in betweenness centrality predict performance. Our results demonstrate that two temporary logics of tie-formation—a suspension of within-unit homophily and a preference for seeking ties with long-tenured employees—help employees acquire betweenness centrality during the disruption period. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of these results and suggest future research directions.
Author’s note about the paper's "warts": In this manuscript we use a combination of SEM and network analysis to assess how survivors of a downsizing reorganize their social networks. We originally switched back and forth between using Conservation of Resources theory and network evolution theory to support our arguments, and ultimately developed our own logical arguments partially based on both for some hypotheses, but for other hypotheses we actually go against what these theories suggest (particularly in hypothesis 1b). One of our main struggles was that we assessed the interaction among employees at three different time periods (we measured betweenness centrality) but we were unable to directly speak to the exact motivation behind why people changed their interaction patterns post-downsizing. As an author team, we consistently argued about our ability to speak to this since we didn’t directly ask people about if they consciously changed their interaction patterns, and further, what would have motivated such change (this issue is primarily relevant for hypotheses 2a-c). This paper is currently under review, but we would welcome feedback on this aspect, as we are certain reviewers will bring it up. Any help that we might be afforded regarding thinking about the relevant theoretical mechanisms that would explain such interaction change would be greatly appreciated.
November 18th: Hila Fogel-Yaari of the Department of Accounting
Our presenter is Hila Fogel-Yaari of the Department of Accounting. The paper that she will present is titled “Financial Disclosure Quality’s Role in Fostering Trust: Evidence from the Relation between Disclosure Quality and Innovation.
Title: Financial Disclosure Quality’s Role in Fostering Trust: Evidence from the Relation between Disclosure Quality and Innovation
Presenter: Hila Fogel-Yaari
When: Wednesday, November 18, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Microsoft Teams
Abstract: In principle, innovation and financial disclosure have little in common. Yet, previous studies have documented a positive association between financial disclosure quality and innovation. I shed light on this puzzle, by pointing to the fact that high quality disclosure fosters investors’ trust, and this trust provides firms the autonomy necessary for innovation. Trust is investors’ willingness to be vulnerable to the risk that the firm will fail their expectations in the short-run, i.e., trust is the tolerance for a firm’s short-term failure. I too document a positive association between disclosure quality and innovation and demonstrate that it is stronger when disclosure plays a more important role in fostering investor trust, including following events that erode trust and when “generalized trust” is high. Further, a path analysis delineates the impact of disclosure on access to financing, and provides further evidence on the importance of disclosure quality for fostering trust. This study contributes to the literature on the economic role of financial disclosure by highlighting that financial disclosure quality proffers a benefit beyond the standard moral hazard and adverse selection roles.
Author’s note about the paper's "warts": My biggest struggle with the paper is finding the right audience for it. It has been rejected from the top accounting journals, who do not acknowledge the importance of trust for the business world. The challenge is exacerbated by the difficulty in measuring trust empirically. In addition, the paper deals with innovation, where the literature is very broad and encompasses a few disciplines, so I would appreciate other researchers' prospective on this paper, and it would also be great to hear ideas that would strengthen the hypothesis development and research design.
Wednesday, October 21 from 2:00-3:30 p.m. via Microsoft Teams.
Our presenter is Narayanan Janakiraman of the Department of Marketing. The paper that he will present is titled “Not All Discounts Are Created Equal: Power Distance Belief and Locus-of-Discount in A Bundle.”.
Title: Not All Discounts Are Created Equal: Power Distance Belief and Locus-of-Discount in A Bundle
Presenter: Narayanan Janakiraman
When: Wednesday, October 21, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where:Via Microsoft Teams
Author’s note about the paper's "warts": One of the big issues has been the theory that drives the effect. In essence what we show is that when bundles of products are sold [say a shampoo and a conditioner] should the discount be offered on the main product [e.g. shampoo] or the tie-in product [e.g. conditioner] and would it be affected by a key cultural construct [namely, power distance belief]. When we started the project the consistent finding was that in high power distance countries [e.g., India] discounts on the tie-in product were ignored while in low power distance countries [such as the US] discounts on either the main product or the tie-in product resulted in similar effect. What was indeed puzzling is that a discount on a tie-in product resulted in lower purchase intent belying common intuition that in countries such as India where discretionary income is lower any discount must make the product more attractive. A second issue apart from this suppressed purchase intent, was what is the theory that leads to this. We pursued various paths, and this month we finished an eye tracking study and a field study with actual consumers in the bookstore [which I have not included in the abstract but will in the presentation] makes us convinced on one account that leads to this effect which is the lack of attentional resources devoted to the tie in product by high power distance folks due to a tendency to discriminate. We will present this and see if we can refine our theory and the set of studies before we submit to the journal. As a final input what we would love the group to help us with is the substantive contribution part of our research. We provide as a part of Study 4 and other studies that brand names might play a role etc, but thinking through how a firm might be able to take advantage of our findings is still something we are struggling with.
Abstract: Four studies examine the relation between power distance belief – the tendency to accept and endorse inequalities – and preference for a discount on the focal (vs. tie-in) product in a bundle, the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions. Our results have important implications for marketing theory and practice.
Wednesday, September 9 from 2:00-3:30 p.m via Microsoft Teams. Our presenter is Kay-Yut Chen of the Department of Information Systems & Operations Management. The paper that he will present is titled “Coping with Digital Extortion: An Experimental Study on Normative Appeals.”
Title: Coping with Digital Extortion: An Experimental Study on Normative Appeals
Presenter: Kay-Yut Chen
When: Wednesday, September 9, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams
Abstract: Digital extortion emerges a significant threat to organizations that rely on information technologies for their business and operations. We study, with human-subject experimentation, how normative appeals may influence defenders’ engagement of investing in security and refusal to pay ransoms as mitigating strategies to this digital extortion threat. We explore the effects of four types of normative appeals: injunctive norms and descriptive norms promoting investing or not-paying ransoms. We find that the defenders’ decisions deviate from the predictions of game theory. However, given the strategic interactions between the defenders and the attacker as well as noisy decision-making behaviors, it is challenging to untangle the influence of the treatment interventions on the defenders. We develop a structural model using the quantal response equilibrium framework to determine how normative appeals change the defenders’ utilities of investing and not-paying. While interventions may be successful in increasing the utilities of investing and/or not-paying, their impacts are mitigated by the attacker reducing ransoms. Thus, it is challenging for an intervention to significantly boost a community’s investment rate or to suppress ransom payment rate. Based on the model, we characterize how security outcomes of a community (including expected ransoms, attack rate, investment rate, payment rate) change with the defenders’ utilities of investing and not-paying. The results to two new interventions, a penalty for paying ransoms and the ability for defenders to communicate via text chat, further validate the modeling results.
Author’s note about the paper's "warts": We would appreciate comments and suggestions on any aspects of the paper. We look forward to an enlivening discussion.