Publication database

Cash flows to hedge funds are highly sensitive to performance streaks, a streak being defined as subsequent quarters during which a fund performs above or below a benchmark, even after controlling for a wide range of common performance measures. At the same time, streaks have limited predictive power regarding future fund performance. This suggests investors weigh information suboptimally, and their decisions are driven too strongly by a belief in continuation of good performance, consistent with the “hot hand fallacy.” The hedge funds that investors choose to invest in do not perform significantly better than those they divest from. These findings are consistent with overreaction to certain types of information and do not support the notion that sophisticated investors have superior information or superior information processing abilities.

© 2021, INFORMS

The case tells the evolution of the call center transformation at Frontelco (a major telecom company in disguise). “Digital” and “agile” approaches to changing the way how call centers operate seem to produce different results. Debate between proponents of alternative approaches takes place across three levels of organizational hierarchy: the Managing Director seems to prefer “agile”, those close to operations in VP ranks seem to prefer “digital”, while three “managers in the middle” following each other in Senior Vice President rank seem to follow different strategies as to how to align the top and the bottom. To settle the debate, evidence-based clarity is being sought and the protagonist is tasked to design an appropriate performance measure to show the real impact of competing approaches.

Conflict management scholars study mixed-motive negotiation situations with cooperative and competitive incentives predominantly through multi-issue negotiation tasks in experimental studies. Intriguingly, experimenters currently lack an objective, generalizable, and continuous measure that precisely quantifies the incentives underlying these negotiation tasks. We present the conflict strength coefficient, which enables scholars to systematically quantify the incentive structures in these multi-issue negotiation tasks. By making the incentive structures accessible and numerically comparable, the conflict strength coefficient provides new insights into the central element of the experimental study of negotiation and conflict management, unmasks differences across existing tasks, facilitates research transparency, knowledge sharing, and open science practices. We demonstrate the coefficient’s benefits by providing a hands-on example from past research, by reviewing and quantitatively assessing the current literature, and by mapping conflict strength coefficients for the negotiation and conflict management research landscape and its subareas. Our analysis suggests that the conflict strength coefficient can enrich the understanding of cooperative and competitive incentives in the established tasks and directly guide and support an individual scholar’s process of knowledge creation. The conflict strength coefficient provides a methodological contribution to the experimental study of conflict management and negotiation with immediate benefits for the production of scientific knowledge, the experimental study of real-world phenomena, and theory development.

Executive Education must be seen as an investment. If we are serious about achieving business impact through training, the first question should be “What business outcomes would we like to see because of this intervention?” Next, we ask questions like “How, where, and when do we need our leaders to perform better to achieve those business outcomes” and “What specific knowledge and skills do we need to equip our leaders with to deliver the improved performance?”. We illustrate this approach through our work with one of the world’s largest commercial vehicle manufacturers, TRATON.

In order to study sexual violence internationally, it is helpful to understand similarities and differences in how sexual violence is conceptualised across countries. The current study examined prosecuting attorneys’ judgments about which sexual tactics legally qualify as sexual violence in two countries. Attorneys from the U.S. (n = 28) and Colombia (n = 24) evaluated whether 36 tactics would qualify as a sexual offense in their jurisdiction. Although Colombian and U.S. attorneys agreed on the legality of many tactics, Colombian attorneys judged more behaviours as criminal, on average, than U.S. attorneys. Within-country variations suggested that differences were due not only to different legal statutes, but also to different interpretations of laws. Open-ended responses illustrated sources of ambiguity, including lack of clarity about how much coercion is required and which behaviours indicate nonconsent. This suggests that vagueness within legal definitions may allow attorney judgements to be influenced by stereotypes and prejudices.

Practical Impact Statement: This study illustrates the vagueness of legal definitions of sexual violence in two countries—the United States and Colombia. This vagueness provides prosecuting attorneys with substantial power to interpret the law, and in this study, some attorney judgements of legality seemed to be influenced by stereotypes. Greater training for law students and attorneys about the realities of sexual violence may be helpful in undermining belief in rape myths that may inhibit attorneys from prosecuting certain sexual violence cases.

Scientists are increasingly crossing the boundaries of the professional system by involving the general public (the crowd) directly in their research. However, this crowd involvement tends to be confined to empirical work and it is not clear whether and how crowds can also be involved in conceptual stages such as formulating the questions that research is trying to address. Drawing on five different “paradigms” of crowdsourcing and related mechanisms, we first discuss potential merits of involving crowds in the formulation of research questions (RQs). We then analyze data from two crowdsourcing projects in the medical sciences to describe key features of RQs generated by crowd members and compare the quality of crowd contributions to that of RQs generated in the conventional scientific process. We find that the majority of crowd contributions are problem restatements that can be useful to assess problem importance but provide little guidance regarding potential causes or solutions. At the same time, crowd-generated research questions frequently cross disciplinary boundaries by combining elements from different fields within and especially outside medicine. Using evaluations by professional scientists, we find that the average crowd contribution has lower novelty and potential scientific impact than professional research questions, but comparable practical impact. Crowd contributions outperform professional RQs once we apply selection mechanisms at the level of individual contributors or across contributors. Our findings advance research on crowd and citizen science, crowdsourcing and distributed knowledge production, as well as the organization of science. We also inform ongoing policy debates around the involvement of citizens in research in general, and agenda setting in particular.

With permission of Elsevier

The case tells the story of a project at Frontelco (a major telco company in disguise) aiming at defining and piloting a business model (Network as a Service, NaaS) in response to the advancement of a new technology (5G). It is written from the perspective of a “trusted advisor” who had been invited by the protagonist to provide methodological support to the project team. The team, which primarily represents the perspective of product management, spends significant time and effort on developing a methodical approach to their own work, leaving the substantive issue (business model innovation) to be defined only vaguely, under the dominant influence of a few team members. In the follow up to the case we learn that by the time concerns emerge that the team does not seem to have developed any presentable output, they find out that their key competitor has already made significant progress and the technology department, their “internal rival”, has also moved ahead with a concept that allows them to claim ownership for a major corporate-level project.