Publication database

Emerging crowdsourcing and crowdfunding mechanisms enable citizens to decide which research projects should be funded. By transferring control from professional scientists, these mechanisms reflect a broader shift towards more open “Mode 2” knowledge production that allows non-academic stakeholders to shape the direction of science. Although this may lead to a greater emphasis on the social impact of research, there is no systematic evidence on how crowd evaluators weigh social impact relative to other criteria such as scientific merit or team qualifications. There are also concerns that the personal financial costs associated with crowdfunding prevent certain socio-economic groups from participating, reducing the representativeness of opinions. Similarly, it is not clear what role citizens’ personal interest in particular topics plays in shaping their evaluations. We provide empirical evidence using data from over 2,300 crowd evaluators who assessed four research proposals in different fields and could express their support using a crowdsourcing mechanism (i.e., recommendation) and a crowdfunding mechanism (i.e., donation of own money). We confirm that crowd evaluators give significant weight to perceived social impact, although this weight is not larger than that of scientific merit. Compared to crowdsourcing, crowdfunding gives greater voice to citizens with higher income and education. Personal interest in a topic tends to be associated with greater project support, which may partly reflect an inflated assessment of social impact. Despite these general patterns, we also observe differences across projects – illustrating context-specificity and variability that make open Mode 2 processes difficult to predict and control.

with permission of Elsevier

How can the selection of innovation projects be designed to reduce false positives and false negatives? Prior research has provided theoretical insights into organizing to reduce errors, yet we know little about how organizations adapt selection over time and the effects of this on selection outcomes. Drawing from qualitative data from 126 interviews conducted over several years, we explore how an accelerator evolved through three selection regimes for high-stakes funding decisions, focusing on the organizational changes and their underlying reasons. We then analyze quantitative data from all 3,580 submissions they received, assessing false positives and false negatives across these regimes. Our findings reveal a persistent occurrence of both types of errors, with relatively small differences across the regimes despite deliberate efforts to enhance the process. In the final regime, which increased submission quality by emphasizing applicant track record and adding additional layers of screening, evaluators surprisingly became more prone to making selection errors. This finding stands net of accounting for (1) differences in the pool of submissions, (2) differences in treatment effects through training and resources provided, (3) learning, and (4) market evolution. By combining qualitative and quantitative data, we explain this through two mechanisms: (1) mean reversion in combination with increased emphasis on applicant track record and (2) within-type adverse selection enabled by a more stringent selection process. The study reveals that evolving an organization’s selection regime may require adjustments across multiple aspects, resulting in unintended consequences.

© 2025, INFORMS

This case illustrates critical concepts and lessons about leading adaptive change in organizations, focusing on the challenges faced by Automécanique Industries during its transition from producing internal combustion engine (ICE) components to electric vehicle (EV) technologies. The case portrays the tensions between employees and management during a pivotal transformation, spotlighting employee reactions to change, possible miscommunication, and perceived leadership shortcomings. The central narrative centers on a letter written by Louis Tremblay, a senior technician, to CEO Isabelle Laurent. The letter, which gains traction among employees and leaks to external media, reflects the fears and frustrations of the workforce.
The case can be used directly in class, making it particularly suitable for executive education sessions or for classes in environments where students frequently fail to come to class prepared.
This case serves as a vehicle for exploring Heifetz’s theory of adaptive change (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009), the psychological challenges of leading change (Kets de Vries et al., 2007), and the importance of transparent communication and trust-building in leadership. The case is adaptable for courses on leadership, organizational behavior, change management, and communication in both MBA and executive education settings.

FoodCo, a historically successful global player in the FMCG field, is navigating a digital transformation initiative. The case focuses on Anette Weber, a 43-year-old Swiss national and Senior Manager for Management Reporting, who recently relocated from the USA to Germany. Anette inherits an overworked, directionless, and low-morale team due to significant headcount reductions and role transitions to an outsourced partner. Shortly after Anette took charge, FoodCo’s CEO, Timothy Brooks, introduced a new vision: “Be the leader in nutrition, health, and wellness and the industry gold standard for financial performance, trusted by all stakeholders.” Anette saw this strategic change as an opportunity but faced challenges in revitalizing her team. Her executive coach advised her to reflect on seven key leadership transition challenges: authorizing oneself as a leader, balancing strategic direction with adaptability, learning and unlearning, driving organizational and cultural transformation, building teams and networks, communicating effectively, and being her best self. To align her team with the new vision, Anette aimed to shift focus from low value-adding tasks to advanced management reporting and forecasting using data analytics. This vision met resistance from department heads who viewed her team as a service provider for exception-based tasks. Additionally, past outsourcing experiences at FoodCo had been contentious. Anette, in her new role, must address team dynamics, organizational culture, and strategic leadership challenges to navigate tensions between innovation capability, focus, collaboration, and governance while ensuring her team aligns with FoodCo's broader strategic goals. But where to start? What shall she do first?

The case examines the challenges faced Simon Kendrick (a composite character), the Global Vice President of Strategy at CabloCorp, a global leader in the cable and engineering solutions market headquartered in Barcelona, as it seeks to implement a transformational shift from traditional volume-driven sales to value-added solutions. While some country general managers and sales leaders have embraced the change and achieved early successes, others cite resource constraints and market realities, and some remain detached. Simon struggles with differing responses—active skepticism, passive disengagement, and resource-related hesitancy—and seeks to align a centralized vision with diverse local realities. The case focuses on bringing about change to an organization that currently feels no pressure for transformation.