Publication database

We hypothesize that “low-contrast categories” (those lacking sharp differentiation from adjacent categories) catalyze the creation of groundbreaking inventions by influencing two key stages in the life of an invention: (1) idea-creation and (2) idea-positioning. During “idea-creation,” low-contrast categories increase the likelihood that descendant inventions will combine the focal invention with more (a) boundary-spanning, (b) novel, (c) original, and (d) atypical knowledge inputs. During “idea-positioning,” they allow greater leeway in articulating how descendant inventions depart from the focal invention’s lineage and chart new technological directions. We find robust support for our hypothesis using data from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s classification system spanning nearly four decades. Further analyses demonstrate that the catalyzing effect of low-contrast categories has important material consequences: inventions classified in low-contrast categories spur descendant inventions that generate substantially higher economic value and exert more enduring technological impact than those in high-contrast categories. By introducing the concept of catalyzing categories, this study offers a novel theoretical perspective on the genesis of groundbreaking inventions and the role of categorical structures in the inventive process.

With permission of the Academy of Management

We examine the survival prospects, employment profiles, and patient outcomes at private equity (PE)-acquired hospitals. Target hospitals maintain their survival rates while significantly reducing employment and wage expenditures. The number of core medical workers drops temporarily, but returns to its pre-acquisition level in the long run. However, administrative job and wage cuts persist over the long term, particularly at previously nonprofit hospitals. Using proprietary insurance claims data, we find no significant changes in patient demographics or inpatient prices at PE-acquired hospitals. While patient satisfaction declines, there is no evidence of increased patient mortality or readmission rates at PE-acquired hospitals.

with the permission of Elsevier

Is it advantageous to make the first offer and to do so ambitiously? Although initial studies suggested clear advantages across cultures and contexts, recent findings have challenged the robustness of this first-mover advantage. A preregistered meta-analysis of 374 effects from 90 studies (Study 1; N = 16,334) revealed three beneficial effects of making the first offer: (a) a general first-mover advantage (g = 0.42, m = 80), (b) a positive correlation between first-offer magnitude and agreement value (r = 0.62, g = 1.56, m = 53), and (c) an advantage of ambitious (vs. moderate) first offers on agreement value (g = 1.14, m = 187). The meta-analysis also identified two detrimental outcomes of ambitious first offers: (d) fewer deals (i.e., more impasses; g = −0.42, m = 13) and (e) worse subjective value experienced by recipients (g = −0.40, m = 41). Two preregistered experiments (Study 2a-2b; N = 2,121) replicated both the beneficial and detrimental meta-analytic effects and simultaneously tested multiple psychological mechanisms driving these effects. Across the experiments, selective accessibility drove the effect of first-offer magnitude on counteroffers, while anger drove the effects on impasses and subjective value. Across both the meta-analysis and the experiments, negotiation complexity moderated both the beneficial and detrimental effects of first offers; as the number and type of issues (i.e., complexity) increased, the effects of first offers became smaller, and the mechanisms changed. Overall, the current meta-analysis and experiments collectively illuminate the direction, size, psychological pathways, and boundaries of first-offer effects in negotiations.

With permission of Elsevier

This book is a comprehensive introductory text for academics and management practitioners interested in making first steps in teaching executive education courses. This book helps understand the landscape of executive education, be aware of it key stakeholders and their expectations, and define the first step for entering the field. The book guides the experts in thinking how to turn their knowledge into valuable learning opportunities for executives. It provides information about program and session design and peculiarities of delivering sessions for executive audiences. The book helps envisage possible challenging situations in the classroom, and supports the reader in making use of program evaluations. The book also invites the reader to think about expanding their executive education experience into becoming an academic director - an intellectual leader of an executive course. The book will also be helpful to people entering the field in administrative roles.

Copyright (c) 2025 Matthew S. Bothner, Richard Haynes, Ingo Marquart, Nghi Truong, Hai Anh Vu

© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The British Psychological Society.