Karen Sedatole

Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting Emory University, Goizueta Business School

  • Atlanta GA

Contact

Emory University, Goizueta Business School

View more experts managed by Emory University, Goizueta Business School

Media

Social

Biography

A three-time recipient of the American Accounting Association’s Notable Contributions to Management Accounting Research Award and a winner of the 2020 Management Accounting Research David Solomons Prize, Sedatole brings a synthesis of business acumen and academic expertise to her role as Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting. She previously served as the Interim John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School from May 2020 through June 2022.

Karen’s pioneering research into the field of performance measurement and reward systems, the role of forecasting and budgetary systems within organizations, and control in interorganizational collaborations have added enormous value across academic and business spheres. In her research, she places emphasis on the role of trust, positive motivation, and systems thinking in the workplace. In tackling these issues, she has partnered across industries – health care, tech, automotive, and more – generating business-relevant research and earning her the Impact on Management Accounting Practice Award twice. Karen’s research has merited grants from the PwC Charitable Foundation, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, and the Institute of Management Accountants. She has also demonstrated her commitment to Goizueta’s core value of principled leadership, serving as Faculty Director for Emory Executive Education’s Executive Women’s Leadership Forum.

Prior to joining the Emory faculty in 2017, Karen was the Russell E. Palmer Endowed Professor of Accounting at Michigan State University. She has also held academic appointments at the University of Texas at Austin and the Stephen F. Austin State University.

She has presented her research at numerous national and international conferences. Her effective forecasting and performance measurement articles have been published in a number of leading journals, including The Journal of Accounting Research, The Accounting Review, and the Harvard Business Review. Karen previously served as senior editor of the Journal of Management Accounting Research.

Karen holds a PhD in business administration from the University of Michigan, a masters of business administration from the University of Texas at Austin, and a bachelor of science in engineering from Baylor University.

Education

University of Michigan

PhD

Business Administration

2000

University of Texas at Austin

MBA

Business Administration

1989

Baylor University

BS

Engineering

1987

Areas of Expertise

Executive Compensation
Performance Evaluation
Reward Systems
Performance Measures
Interorganizational Collaboration
Forecasting
Compensation and Rewards
Calibration Committees

Publications

The immunization effect of internal control system transparency following a supplier’s violation of buyer trust

2024 Journal of Management Accounting Research

Cianci, A., B. Reichert, K. L. Sedatole, and G. Tsakumis

In this study, we show that a supplier’s internal controls (IC) that lead to either falling short of or to exceeding buyer expectations play an important role in the trust a buyer has in its supplier. In a 12-round repeated trust game, we examine the impact of supplier ICs and the transparency of those ICs to the buyer on buyer trusting behavior across three phases of the buyer-supplier relationship: (1) trust formation, (2) trust violation, and (3) trust repair. We find that, while a supplier’s trust violation reduces buyer trusting behavior, the least amount of damage to trusting behavior occurs for suppliers whose ICs led to supplier actions that fell marginally short of buyer expectations prior to the violation and when the IC was transparent to the buyer. We refer to this as the IC transparency “immunization effect.” We show suppliers can benefit from making IC choices known to partners.

Making the most of supplier industry competition through incentive contracting

2021 Journal of Accounting and Economics 71 (2-3).

Carter, M. E., J. Choi, and K. L. Sedatole

We examine how supplier industry competition affects CEO incentive intensity in procuring firms. Using Bureau of Economic Analysis data to compute a weighted supplier industry competition measure, we predict and find that higher supplier competition is associated with stronger CEO pay-for-performance incentive intensity. This effect is incremental to that of the firm's own industry competition previously documented and is robust to alternative measures of supplier competition and to exogenous shocks to competition. Importantly, we show that performance risk and product margin act as mediating variables in the relation between supplier competition and CEO incentive intensity providing support for the theory underpinning our finding. We document that CEO compensation contracts are used as a mechanism to exploit the market dynamics of upstream industries to a firm's benefit. Our findings are economically important as suppliers provide, on average, 45 percent of the value delivered by procuring firms to the market (BEA, 2016).

The folly of forecasting: The effects of a disaggregated demand forecasting system on forecast error, forecast positive bias, and inventory levels

2021 The Accounting Review 96 (2): 127–152

Bruggen, A., I. Grabner, and K. L. Sedatole

Periodic demand forecasts are the primary planning and coordination mechanism within organizations. Because most demand forecasts incorporate human judgment, they are subject to both unintentional error and intentional opportunistic bias. We examine whether a disaggregation of the forecast into various sources of demand reduces forecast error and bias. Using proprietary data from a manufacturing organization, we find that absolute demand forecast error declines following the implementation of a disaggregated forecast system. We also find a favorable effect of forecast disaggregation on finished goods inventory without a corresponding increase in costly production plan changes. We further document a decline in positive forecast bias, except for products whose production is limited owing to scarce production resources. This implies that disaggregation alone is not sufficient to overcome heightened incentives of self-interested sales managers to positively bias the forecast for the very products that an organization would like to avoid tying up in inventory.

Show All +

Research Spotlight

8 min

#Expert Research: Incentives Speed Up Operating Room Turnover Procedures

The operating room (OR) is the economic hub of most healthcare systems in the United States today, generating up to 70% of hospital revenue. Ensuring these financial powerhouses run efficiently is a major priority for healthcare providers. But there’s a challenge. Turnovers—cleaning, preparing, and setting up the OR between surgeries—are necessary and unavoidable processes. OR turnovers can incur significant costs in staff time and resources, but at the same time, do not generate revenue. For surgeons, the lag between wheels out and wheels in is idle time. For incoming patients, who may have spent hours fasting in preparation for a procedure, it is also a potential source of frustration and anxiety. Reducing OR turnover time is a priority for many US healthcare providers, but it’s far from simple. For one thing, cutting corners in pursuit of efficiency risks patient safety. Then there’s the makeup of OR teams themselves. As a rule, well-established or stable teams work fastest and best, their efficiency fueled by familiarity and well-oiled interpersonal dynamics. But in hospital settings, staff work in shifts and according to different schedules, which creates a certain fluidity in the way turnover teams amalgamate. These team members may not know each other or have any prior experience working together. For hospital administrators this represents a quandary. How do you cut OR turnover time without compromising patient care or hiring in more staff to build more stable teams? To put that another way: how do you motivate OR workers to maintain standards and drive efficiency—irrespective of the team they work with at any given time? One novel approach instituted by Georgia’s Phoebe Putney Health System is the focus of new research by Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole PhD. Under the stewardship of perioperative medical director and anesthesiologist, Jason Williams MD 02MR 20MBA, and with support from Sedatole and co-authors, Ewelina Forker 23PhD of the University of Wisconsin and Harvard Business School’s Susanna Gallini PhD, staff at Phoebe ran a field experiment incentivizing individual OR workers to ramp up their own performance in turnover processes. What they have found is a simple and cost-effective intervention that reduces the lag between procedures by an average of 6.4 percent. Homing in on the Individual Williams and his team at Phoebe kicked off efforts to reduce OR turnover times by first establishing a benchmark to calculate how long it should take to prepare for different types of procedure or surgery. This can vary significantly, says Williams: while a gallbladder removal should take less than 30 minutes, open-heart surgery might take an hour or longer to prepare. “There’s a lot of variation in predicting how long it should take to get things set up for different procedures. We got there by analyzing three years of data to create a baseline, and from there, having really homed in on that data, we were able to create a set of predictions and then compare those with what we were seeing in our operating rooms—and track discrepancies, over-, and underachievement.” Williams, a Goizueta MBA graduate who also completed his anesthesiology residency at Emory University’s School of Medicine, then enlisted the support of Sedatole and her colleagues to put together a data analysis system that would capture the impact of two distinct mechanisms, both designed to incentivize individual staff members to work faster during turnovers. The first was a set of electronic dashboards programmed to record and display the average OR turnover performance for teams on a weekly basis, and segment these into averages unique to individuals working in each of the core roles within any given OR turnover team. The dashboard displayed weekly scores and ranked them from best to worst on large TV monitors with interactive capabilities—users could filter the data for types of surgery and other dimensions. Broadcasting metrics this way afforded Williams and his team a means of identifying and then publicly recognizing top-performing staff, but that’s not all. The dashboards also provided a mechanism with which to filter out team dynamics, and home in on individual efforts. “If you are put in a room with one team, and they are slower than others, then you are going to be penalized. Your efforts will not shine. Now, say you are put in with a bigger or faster team, your day’s numbers are going to be much higher. So, we had to find a way to accommodate and allow for the team effect, to observe individual effort. The dashboards meant we could do this. Over the period of a week or a month, the effect of other people in the team is washed out. You begin to see the key individuals pop up again and again over time, and you can see those who are far above their peers versus those who, for whatever reason, are not so efficient.” Sharing “relative performance” information has been shown to be highly motivating in many settings. The hope was that it would here, too. Three core roles: Who’s who in the Operating Room turnover team? OR turnover teams consist of three roles: circulating nurse, scrub tech, and anesthetist. While other surgery staff might be present during a turnover, depending on the needs of consecutive procedures, these are the three core roles in the team, and they are not interchangeable in any way: each individual assumes the same responsibilities in every team they join. Typically, turnover tasks will include removing instruments and equipment from the previous surgery and setting up for the next: restocking supplies and restoring the sterile environment. Turnover tasks and activities will vary according to the type of procedure coming next, but these tasks are always performed by the same three roles: nurse, scrub tech, and anesthetist, working within their own area of expertise and specialty. OR turnover teams are assembled based on staff schedules and availability, making them highly fluid. Different nurses will work with different scrub techs and different anesthetists depending on who is free and available at any given time. With dashboards on display across the hospital’s surgery department, Williams decided to trial a second motivational mechanism; this time something more tangible. “We decided to offer a simple $40 Dollar Store gift card to each week’s top performing anesthetist, nurse, or scrub technician to see if it would incentivize people even more. And to keep things interesting, and sustain motivation, we made sure that anyone who’d won the contest two weeks in a row would be ineligible to win the gift card the following week,” says Williams. “It was a bit of a shot in the dark, and we didn’t know if it would work.” Altogether, the dashboards remained in situ over a period of about 33 months while the gift card promotion ran for 73 weeks. It was important to stress the foundational importance of safety and then allow individuals to come up with their own ways to tighten procedures. This was a bottom-up, grassroots experience where the people doing the work came up with their own ways to make their times better, without cutting corners, without cutting quality, and without cutting any safety measures. Jason Williams MD 02MR 20MBA Incentives: Make it Something Special and Unique Crunching all of this data, Sedatole and her colleagues could isolate the effect of each mechanism on performance and turnover times at Phoebe. While the dashboards had “negligible” effect on productivity, the addition of the store gift cards had immediate, significant, and sustained impact on individuals’ efforts. Differences in the effectiveness of the two incentives—the relative performance dashboard and the gift cards—are attributable to team fluidity, says Sedatole. “It’s all down to familiarity. Dashboards are effective if you care about your reputation and your standing with peers. And in fluid team settings, where people don’t really know each other, reputation seems to matter less because these individuals may never work together again. They simply care less about rankings because they are effectively strangers.” Tangible rewards, on the other hand, have what Sedatole calls a “hedonic” value: they can feel more special and unique to the recipient, even if they carry relatively little monetary value. Something like a $40 gift card to Target can be more motivating to individuals even than the same amount in cash. There’s something hedonic about a prize that differentiates it from cash—after all, you will just end up spending that $40 on the electricity bill. Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole “A tangible reward is something special because of its hedonic nature and the way that human beings do mental accounting,” says Sedatole. “It occupies a different place in the brain, so we treat it differently.” In fact, analyzing the results, Sedatole and her colleagues find that the introduction of gift cards at Phoebe equates to an average incremental improvement of 6.4% in OR turnover performance; a finding that does not vary over the 73-week timeframe, she adds. To get the same result by employing more staff to build more stable teams, Sedatole calculates that the hospital would have to increase peer familiarity to the 98th percentile: a very significant financial outlay and a lot of excess capacity if those additional team members are not working 100% of the time. These are key findings for healthcare systems and for administrators and decision-makers in any setting or sector where fluid teams are the norm, says Sedatole: from consultancy to software development to airline ground crews. Wherever diverse professionals come together briefly or sporadically to perform tasks and then disperse, individual motivation can be optimized by simple mechanisms—cost-effective tangible rewards—that give team members a fresh opportunity to earn the incentive in different settings on different occasions—a recurring chance to succeed that keeps the incentive systems engaging and effective over time. For healthcare in particular, this is a win-win-win, says Williams. “In the United States we are faced with lower reimbursements and higher costs, so we have to look for areas where we can gain efficiencies and minimize costs. In the healthcare value model, time and costs are denominators, and quality and service are numerators. Any way we can save on costs and improve efficiencies allows us to take care of more patients, and to be able to do that effectively. “We made some incredible improvements here. We went from just average to best in class, right to the frontier of operative efficiency. And there is so much more opportunity out there to pull more levers and reach new levels, which is truly encouraging.” Looking to know more or connect with Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole?  Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.

Karen Sedatole

3 min

More than just money – what corporate America needs to do to motivate today’s workforce

In a modern workplace no longer characterized by rigid hierarchies and where power is more diffused, traditional methods of motivation may no longer be enough. We have come to understand the value of providing people with ‘intrinsic motivation’ – a sense of purpose, the importance of creative, interesting work, and maintaining work-life balance. We have naturally moved away from a sole dependence on monetary incentives. However, in a New York Times opinion piece, management author Alfie Kohn asserts that “science has confirmed” that monetary rewards amount to “bribes” that don’t work. Somehow this doesn’t ring true. Has science really confirmed this? Would businesses continue to incentivize performance with monetary rewards if they did not work? And aren’t we all, at least to some extent, motivated by money? To understand if Kohn is right, or if there is a more nuanced answer, Karen Sedatole, Professor of Accounting at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School says we need to look at patterns of human behavior. The classical economic theory, which gave us ‘homo economicus,’ assumes people always behave in a rational way and, as with Gordon Gekko in the ‘Wall Street’ movies, selfishness predominates. Findings from psychology and particularly behavioral economics have started to show this to be incorrect. In fact, people tend to make illogical choices contrary to self-interest. Our capacity to think – via a mix of deep reflective thinking and rapid automatic thinking – can lead us to what economists might consider to be irrational behaviors – albeit with the cognitive biases behind our thinking staying mostly predictable. Do monetary incentives work? We all value money, but our perception of its value is influenced by the importance that we also place on reciprocity and fairness, social norms, trust, and trustworthiness. When it comes to monetary rewards for performance the results will also greatly depend on the quality of the performance measures, along with the type of task being rewarded, and the type of reward. Contrary to Kohn’s assertion, Sedatole points out there are many real-world examples that show monetary incentives can deliver big performance and productivity improvements. In fact, if uncontrolled, bonus incentives can be too powerful a motivator, causing damage – as the UK’s PPI and the Wells Fargo mis-selling scandals both firmly attest. There is also strong academic evidence that monetary rewards can have a positive effect, and equally strong evidence that, when over-used, they can elicit bad behavior. Based on relevant academic research in this area, Sedatole identifies four core principles for the use of monetary incentives: Payment for performance can certainly lead to people making a greater effort than when they are rewarded by salary alone, but only if these core principles are followed: 1. Performance targets – Performance targets should be difficult to hit but not too difficult. 2. Performance metrics – The way performance is measured should be sensitive to the employees’ perceptions and sense of control. Employees should believe that their increased effort improves performance, improved performance leads to greater reward, and reward is valued. Metrics must be precise and not prejudiced by external factors. And, from the organization’s perspective, metrics should be set to meet its objectives. 3. Fairness and social norms – Monetary rewards must be seen to be fair and to comply across organizations. They should also conform to social norms. 4. Characteristics of the task – The efficacy of monetary incentives can depend on the nature of the task and to what extent the task provides intrinsic incentives. Here Alfie Kohn has a point; in some cases, monetary rewards tend to undermine intrinsic incentives. ‘Boring’ tasks have little or no intrinsic motivation, whereas creative tasks – the work of a physician, designer, scientist, etc. – are intrinsically motivating. Where there is intrinsic motivation money can be less relevant and in extreme cases can be seen to devalue the intrinsic factors. Professor Sedatole’s recent webinar: ‘Irrational but Predictable! When to Use Monetary Incentives to Motivate Employees’ explains her findings in further details: simply visit it to view and watch for here: If you are journalist covering this topic – Professor Sedatole is available to speak with reporters – simply click on her icon today to arrange an interview.

Karen Sedatole

2 min

Forecasting demand and supply? Our experts can help explain how industry is trying to weather the storm of COVID-19.

Forecasting demand of any product for industry, manufacturing and even retail is already a difficult task. And now, amid a global pandemic that has seen some industries grind to a halt while others ramp up to keep up means that measuring expectations about demand is key to corporate survival during these trying times. We have not experienced a global pandemic like the coronavirus in last 100 years. The sheer increase in demand for everyday necessities like toilet paper, sanitary wipes and bottled water is putting undo stress on a lean global supply chain. It is testing the agility of many retailers and consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies as they attempt to ramp up manufacturing facilities and logistical operations while struggling to keep up with consumer demand.  Business executives are looking to data, analytics, and technology for answers on how to predict and plan for the surge and, ultimately, the decline in consumer demand. It is significantly easier to shut down facilities than it is to quickly boost production and capacity. The biggest unknown is whether there will be a delayed economic recovery or a prolonged contraction. Regardless of the outcome, retailers and their CPG suppliers will need to think ahead and be prepared to act quickly. March 25 – RIS News There are so many angles and aspects of our daily life that need to be covered during the COVID-19 outbreak – and if you are a journalist looking at how business and industry are adapting during this crisis, the let our experts help. Dr. Karen Sedatole is the Goizueta Advisory Board Term Professor of Accounting. She has conducted extensive research on forecasting and capacity management that can shed light on the challenges of responding to the current uncertain environment. Karen is available to speak with media – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.

Karen Sedatole
Show More +

In the News

How to Conduct Motivating Performance Reviews When Business Is Down

Harvard Business Review  online

2023-12-20

As the manager, your job is to rally your team members and inspire them for the year ahead. But what if your business isn’t doing well? How can you objectively assess individual performance? And how can you balance realistic expectations for the future while also fostering a sense of leaderly optimism? In this article, the author outlines strategies for how to conduct a motivating performance review when business is down. Preparation is paramount regardless of the state of the economy, but in tougher times, providing accurate and insightful feedback becomes all the more crucial.

View More

Expert weighs in on Georgia's ability to claim unborn children as dependents on taxes

Fox 5 Atlanta  tv

2022-08-02

"The new rules allow for an exemption on the state tax return for unborn children as soon as the heart beat is detected," said Karen Sedatole, an accounting professor at the Goizueta Business School at Emory University.

View More

Women who are pregnant in Georgia can now claim unborn child on taxes

CBS46 Atlanta  tv

2022-08-02

The Georgia Department of Revenue says that families who are expecting a child or children can now claim the unborn child on their taxes.

The new guidance was released on their website on Monday. It says the tax change is due to the Supreme Court’s ruling related to Roe v Wade and the Court of Appeal’s decision to allow Georgia’s “Heartbeat Law” to go into effect.

View More

Show All +