Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Criminals are opportunists, and the COVID-19 global onslaught has brought with it not just health threats but cybersecurity risks, too. Within weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak, hackers have already commandeered the virus to unleash cyberattacks, sending emails purporting to provide coronavirus guidance laced with cyberattack software. In one more alarming case, they appear to have attacked a hospital and forced it to cancel operations and take key systems offline. As the outbreak continues to intensify, the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) warned that the volume of these attacks will likely increase, pointing to the increased registration of coronavirus-related webpages. Criminals are opportunists, and the COVID-19 global onslaught has brought with it not just health threats but cybersecurity risks, too. As companies move to protect the health of their workforce, it’s also important to protect the systems they’re using to run their businesses. It’s especially important for hospitals to shore-up their cyber defenses. If they don’t, just as they are racing to respond to COVID-19, they could face situations like University Hospital Brno in the Czech Republic, which earlier this month was forced to divert patients and cancel planned operations while it worked to address an attack. The most likely cyber threats are email “phishing” campaigns that use the coronavirus as a lure to get the recipient to open an attachment that contains malware. According to the NCSC, such “phishing” attempts are happening on a global scale in multiple countries, which has led to both a theft of money and sensitive data. Similarly, known hacker groups have been launching websites purporting to sell masks or other safety-related measures for coronavirus, possibly to use them as another vector for cyberattacks. The NCSC has also cautioned that these attacks are “versatile and can be conducted through various media, adapted to different sectors and monetized via multiple means, including ransomware, credential theft, bitcoin or fraud.” The cybersecurity firm ProofPoint has seen a rise in these cyberattack emails with COVID-19 themes since January. Both ProofPoint and IBM’s X-Force cybersecurity unit identified a campaign that targeted users in Japan with an email masquerading as a coronavirus information email that carries with it a potent type of cybercrime software. In the US, the Secret Service recently warned of scams from online criminals posing as sellers of high-demand medical supplies to prevent coronavirus. They’ll require payment upfront and not send the products. Cyber criminals have also been posing as the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), sending fraudulent emails from the former and “creating domain names similar to the CDC’s web address to request passwords and even bitcoin donations to fund a vaccine” for the latter. In addition to the use of the coronavirus as a cyberattack vector, the growing need for working remotely to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 has increased companies’ exposure to cyber threats. The increase in remote work creates more opportunities for hackers to make inroads from less secure locations. Companies should also ensure they can provide adequate security when their whole workforce is remote. They should quickly work through the security implications of workers choosing to switch to insecure personal devices. With national-level pressures on home broadband, staff will also resort to mobile hotspots, which are often less secure. And enabling remote connectivity at scale, with the right security configurations, can be a challenge even with months of preparation time. A recent US Department of Homeland Security COVID-19 cybersecurity notice pointed to the importance of making sure that security measures are up to date for companies’ remote access systems. Additional measures to consider include enabling multifactor authentication—which can require two or more steps to verify a user’s identity before granting access to corporate networks. The NCSC is also working to identify malicious sites responsible for phishing and cyberattack software. A final looming cyberthreat related to Covid-19 is disinformation. The World Health Organization and other agencies have for months been combatting disinformation campaigns spreading false information about the origins of and treatments for COVID-19—reports that seed more confusion and increase risks to society. All of that means that computer virus risks are emerging as the biological virus spreads—and both are a threat to business. Cyber risk mitigation efforts should account for the different ways that a company can be affected, including impacts on the technical, operational, legal and reputational aspects of a business. Often, the reputational effects of a cyberattack are more significant than direct the business or technical impact. To mitigate all of the potential impacts of cyberattacks taking advantage of the Covid-19 outbreak, companies should: Review and update crisis and cybersecurity response plans, and ensure internal and external communications response plans are robust. Confirm that members of the crisis management team understand their roles and responsibilities. Make sure all communications channels have the latest security patches. Review and update access controls, particularly when remote access is used heavily, to make sure that only those who require access to sensitive systems to do their jobs have it. Take extra care when handling medical information. For companies managing employees who have contracted Covid-19, it’s important that personal health information is handled with strong security measures, including encryption. Educate employees about the cyber risks that may attempt to capitalize on fear of the Covid-19 virus—whether it be phishing email or disinformation. Covid-19 poses a number of short- and long-term challenges to business resilience, and the virus’s trajectory is quick and unpredictable. But it’s possible to anticipate and mitigate a number of the cyber threats that will try to ride the virus’s coattails. The companies that do will be more resilient and better positioned to withstand the direct health and operational effects of the virus.
Under Armour’s response to a cyber attack achieved the seemingly impossible: Rather than fueling outrage, it actually drew praise. Brunswick’s Siobhan Gorman reports. In late March last year, Under Armour learned that its MyFitnessPal app, which tracks diet and exercise, had a data breach that affected 150 million users. It’s not uncommon for companies to take several weeks—or even months—to publicly announce a cyber attack of that scale. Under Armour did so in four days. Tokë Vandervoort on What Made The Difference 1. Relationships External relationships are how we found out about the breach, and they’re how we knew which advisers and expertise to bring on board right away. We had those in place and had put a lot of effort into maintaining them and keeping them up to date. Internally, the trust we’d built allowed us to move as quickly as we did. Both paid huge dividends. 2. Preparedness I don’t know anybody whose incident response team meets every other week, but ours does. Sometimes we’re just shooting the breeze, but other times we’re asking: “What’s going on in the business? What are you hearing? What’s happening?” We enjoy a great relationship with the product team, the engineering team, the IT security team, the IT team ... It’s not just sharing information, but also getting to know one another, which ties back to the importance of relationships—knowing what’s going on and who to call. 3. Practice We do a table top every year for a data incident. I’ve heard people say table tops are too expensive—we make up our own. Security and privacy get together and create a two- or three-hour game. One year it’ll be a supply chain issue, another year it’ll be a data event. We invite decision-makers from across the organization so that people then have a sense of what it feels like to make decisions without full information and to have to do so under a lot of pressure. People appreciate not just how hard these decisions are, but they know who the other people are, and the issues that they’re confronted with. The companies that have the most confident response are the ones where everybody knows their roles—not some giant team of people who have never worked together. When you have complete clarity of purpose, focus and leadership, you can get anything done.
Why posting to multiple channels drives virality of online videos
Back in the summer of 2012, South Korean pop star Psy released a music video on YouTube. Running at just under four minutes, “Gangnam Style” rapidly became a global sensation. Within just two months of its release, the video was attracting a daily average of nine million viewers. In late September, Guinness World Records confirmed it to be the “most liked” video on YouTube. By December it had become the first piece of content on the platform to garner more than one billion views. As of 2020, the Gangnam Style video has been seen by more than 3.7 billion people around the world. Pys’s official YouTube channel has around 14.1 million followers—a significant user base. But even assuming that each one of these followers had watched the video several times and shared it with others, it still doesn’t account for the sheer volume of views the video has racked up over time. So what’s going on? What is behind the super virality of Gangnam Style and other pieces of content that, like it, appear to defy the rules of probability on the social web? Rajiv Garg, associate professor of information systems & operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, has put a new hypothesis to the test. And he’s found that there’s a clear link between virality and what he calls the “spillover effect” of posting content onto multiple platforms at specific times. “We know that when celebrities and popular figures post videos, there’s likely to be a strong response from their follower base, depending on the content. But over time, user consumption reaches a saturation point—the novelty simply wears off. And this happens around 10 days after a video is posted,” Garg said. “Yet some videos just keep on going, getting successive waves of views on the same platform in quantities that eclipse the follower base. We hypothesized that this is affected by launching on different sites and platforms, but we really wanted to understand the mechanisms behind this and figure out why this activity was occurring on the original platform as well as others—as in the Gangnam case.” Together with Vijay Mahajan (McCombs, UT Austin) and Haris Krijestorac (HEC Paris), Garg looked at the diffusion patterns for viral content on the social web. First analysis confirmed that content sharing by users was the chief primary driver of virality; indeed, views typically increased after a video would appear on a second or third platform. But this didn’t explain why those views were growing back on the original platform too. In fact, the finding ran contrary to the established view that platforms compete for content—that posting to one platform leeches user views from another. “The reasoning until now has been that social platforms cannibalize content. In other words, when you post Gangnam Style onto Vimeo, you’ll get fewer views on YouTube as a result,” Garg said. “Users will move to the other platform and watch it there instead.” But in fact, the opposite was happening. Intrigued, Garg and his coauthors deployed synthetic control—a comparative statistics methodology—to test the causal effects of sharing content to one platform versus posting it to multiple sites. This methodology involved posting 381 viral videos on 26 video-hosting sites. In addition, they ran a randomized field experiment with 30 videos that were randomly seeded onto new platforms at random times. The results across both methods were consistent. Users who were finding the videos once they had been posted to a second (or third, or fourth) platform were still sending viewers to the original platform to view the content. And viewers were coming in droves. “What seems to be happening is that content is going viral as it’s consumed on the original platform—YouTube, say—and then shared to other channels. Here, on the second channel—Vimeo, Daily Motion or others—these videos reach new audiences,” explained Garg. “But for whatever reason, once they’ve discovered the video, many of these new users prefer to go to the original channel and watch it there. And this is happening consistently and in highly significant numbers of users.” This spillover effect could be due to a number of things, says Garg. It could be that for certain audiences, content is simply more readily discoverable on certain platforms—but that these platforms are not the first choice in viewing preferences. It could also be that the content is visible to users but not viewable on the second platform. “Say Gangnam Style is seen on YouTube by a viewer and shared. It then appears on Vimeo, and a second user discovers it; but maybe this user doesn’t like Vimeo or perhaps Vimeo isn’t available in their region or country. What happens then?” noted Garg. “The simple answer is that these new users end up Googling Gangnam Style and find it on YouTube—the original platform. The novelty and virality of the first wave of users has died down, but this new wave of users comes in, creating a spillover effect that boosts the popularity of the video all over again.” Looking again at the results of their analyses, Garg and his colleagues were able to determine that the spillover effect is strongest immediately after a video is introduced onto a secondary platform, as well as at the 18- and 42-day marks. “We analyzed the effect of introducing a video onto a new platform on the increase in views it generates on the original platform over time,” said Garg. “It appears the spillover mechanism is strongest during the first week but experiences spikes later on. In the long-run, we were able to generate twice as many views back on the original platform as we would otherwise have expected. So the effect really is huge.” It is also limited, however. The researchers found diminishing impact in posting content to a succession of different platforms. By the time the video is shared to a fourth or fifth platform, Garg and his coauthors saw no returns. The findings are nonetheless hugely significant for content creators, he says. “We’ve seen that content shared on different platforms sends users back to the original, and that debunks the idea that online channels cannibalize each other’s content,” Garg noted. “And we’re able to say with precision that this effect is strongest during the first week with later spikes, suggesting these may be the best times to introduce content onto new platforms.” Content creators looking to ‘viralize’ their material would do well to take a strategic, omni-channel approach based on these insights, says Garg. Multi-platform sharing is an effective way of spreading word of mouth content and reaching new audience bases—and not just nationally, he stresses. “The effect is not limited to borders or languages. Savvy content creators can create their first ripple on a YouTube or Vimeo and, as the views start falling off, go on to propagate to a second or third channel, including foreign ones,” he said. “The spillover effect is just the same. Staging and staggering your content this way, you reach completely new audiences, many of whom will spill over onto your original platform.” If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic – then let our experts help with your story. Rajiv Garg from Emory’s Goizueta Business School is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Want to save on home loans? Just talk to your peers!
For most of us, finance is complex. Yet making financial decisions is part of day-to-day life. Take mortgages. Around 60 percent of U.S. households have a home mortgage, but how many actually understand its real value? Calculating things like interest rate trade-offs or closing costs is not easy, and research finds that a majority of families make financial mistakes because they fail to understand benefits or savings that might be open to them in refinancing. There are ways to overcome this kind of “information friction”—the obstacles to understanding that make it hard for people to process complex financial ideas and concepts. One of these is education. Ensuring that people have direct access to clear information can help inform household decisions. That seems pretty basic. Another, perhaps less understood, mechanism is the “peer effect”—the way we learn from and are influenced by what our peers or colleagues say or do. A new paper published in the Review of Financial Studies by Gonzalo Maturana, associate professor of finance, takes a fresh look at how the peer effect can help households make better decisions about their mortgages. And he finds that work colleagues and associates can actually have a far greater positive impact on our financial outcomes than we might expect. Together with Jordan Nickerson from MIT’s Sloan School of Management, Maturana ran a large-scale study of a particular U.S. peer group: public school teachers employed by the state of Texas. Here’s what the study found: Where there was a lot of mortgage refinancing going on among teachers in a particular school, individuals were a stunning 20.7 percent more likely to refinance their own mortgage. In other words, they were far more disposed to investigate alternatives and take advantage of the better deals on offer. The peer effect was also a critical factor in their subsequent choice of mortgage lender. Maturana and Nickerson also found that the more savings a particular peer group was making in mortgage repayments, the more refinancing activity there was in that school or teacher network. It is clear. With financial decisions, the network effect can create a positive feedback loop, said Maturana. Household finance and mortgages are top of mind and play a part in most American families – and if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic – then let our experts help. Gonzalo Maturana is an Associate Professor of Finance at the Goizueta Business School. He is an expert in the areas of corporate, household and real estate finance. Gonzalo is available to speak to media regarding this topic – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Researchers urge: Learn from (someone else’s) experience
Measuring your performance as a business is critical. If you want to grow and be successful, you need to understand what you do well—and not so well. To paraphrase a couple of old adages, we all learn from our mistakes and our experience. But in today’s bumpy and fast-changing business landscape, measuring performance can be tough; tougher still if yours is a complex organization or industry. Whatever you’re looking at to gauge your firm’s performance—whether it’s customer satisfaction, say, or repeat purchases—your measures might well be less than perfect. And that’s because of noise—abstruse or unreliable data that makes it hard to unpack key metrics accurately and to learn from them. How successful a firm is in negotiating this performance measure noise depends on how that firm learns, said Kristy Towry, John and Lucy Cook Chair and professor of accounting at Goizueta Business School. She has led a study that looks at the way organizations and the people in them manage their learning. And she finds that we’re way more adept at cutting through the noise when we learn from each other, rather than basing our learning on our own firsthand experience. What the study found: What Towry and her colleagues found was that when there’s a lot of noise in the data we’re working with, our strategic learning is considerably improved when our learning is vicarious—that’s to say, when we learn from each other. This is down to how much of the big picture we see, said Towry. And experiential learning can make us myopic. “We know from psychology and from the results of this study that experiential learning—basing what we learn mainly off our own firsthand experience—can limit us. Experience tends to make us over-focus on what is happening in the here and now or what has just happened. We forget what happened before and don’t build that into our decision-making.” Vicarious learning, on the other hand, helps us to see the bigger picture. “When we’re learning from each other, it’s also experiential, but the learning is augmented by other people’s experience, meaning that we have a broadened perspective," said Towry. "We’re better able to see the big-picture patterns and trends.” When there’s a lot of noise and complexity to negotiate, vicarious learning helps us make better decisions. And this has huge implications for businesses operating in today’s environment. “Our world is not cut and dried at the best of times. Right now we are dealing with the COVID-19 crisis and the fallout on world economies and trade. The business context for most firms operating in this context is very far from stable, so we can assume there’s a lot of complexity and noise affecting our performance indicators. And with so much change afoot, the experiences we are all having in the workplace are what I would call fairly idiosyncratic,” said Towry. “Business leaders should be very aware of this.” To optimize strategic learning and thrive in complexity, firms need to find ways to allow vicarious learning to happen, she said. That means thinking about how to break down barriers to knowledge sharing, be they organizational silos or emerging challenges associated with things like remote working. Sharing information, insight, and understanding is essential. Kristy L. Towry is John and Lucy Cook Chair and Professor of Accounting at Emory University's Goizueta Business School. To learn more about this research or to talk with Kristy – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Innovation: Should it always be a team sport?
Conventional wisdom has it that innovation is very much a team sport. To create a breakthrough innovation that is vastly more successful than its predecessors, you need to prioritize teams over the individual. That's not always the case, according to Tian Heong Chan, assistant professor of information systems & operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. It depends very much on the degree to which the invention can be broken down into discrete chunks of work. Chan and colleagues from INSEAD published a paper, “Revisiting the Role of Collaboration in Creating Breakthrough Inventions,” in the Manufacturing and Service Operations Management journal in 2020. In it, they look at more than one million U.S. patents for new products filed between 1985 and 2009. The majority of these patents were awarded for innovations in function—machines, processes or products that delivered some kind of utility. The others corresponded to design; in other words, the distinct visual form or aspect of a product, like Coca-Cola’s iconic curvy bottle or the Apple iPhone. Sifting these patents for breakthroughs (those ranked by citations as being in the top 5 percent of their product class), Chan and his colleagues were able to look at whether standout innovations were the product of teamwork or whether any of them had actually been developed by a lone innovator. And what they found sheds fascinating and useful new light on the dynamics undergirding the innovation process. As a rule, breakthrough functional products—those awarded patents for some kind of utility—do tend to be created by teams. But when it comes to inventions that are centered on breakthrough designs, it’s a whole different ball game. Here, the solo inventor is every bit as likely to create a breakthrough as an entire team. The study looks at a diverse cross-section of industries from computers to cars, Chan and his co-authors found that lone inventors do relatively better on these types of integral inventions. It’s a fascinating work of research – and if you are looking to know more, then let us help. Tian Heong Chan is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. He is available to speak to his research and this important topic – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Businesses must have a strategy for a messy tomorrow
John Kim is a Senior Lecturer in Organization & Management at the Goizueta Business School at Emory University. He is a management consultant with more than 20 years of experience working with executives to make difficult decisions and implement sustainable change. Recently, John published a piece that details a ‘Strategy for a messy tomorrow’ where he outlines how businesses must have a strategy development and implementation for an unpredictable business world. The piece is attached and a must read, especially in these turbulent and unpredictable economic times. In the article, he focuses on three key points: 1.Beware of False Choices “One thing we try to teach here at the business school is to be careful of false choices. Business is incredibly dynamic. Every industry is now a technology business, and the corporate playbook that evolved to protect profits is quite outdated.” Kim notes that Thomas Friedman poetically described this new normal in his 2005 book The World is Flat, and over the last 15 years, competition has only accelerated because of the explosion of two resources: cheap money and data. Kim notes that it’s a great environment to start or fund a business because interest rates have been low for the last 10+ years. There are dozens of new entrants in all industries, and all parts of the value chain, who are often well-funded, flexible, and are not weighed down by legacy business models and assets. The big winners are the customers who have increasing choice, lower prices, and great value capture. 2.The Challenging Environment From his corporate experience, Kim sees two significant challenges to strategy implementation. First, senior leaders turn over quickly. “It’s hard to have consistency of vision and leadership and implementation when there is such a movement in the C-suite with someone moving in and someone moving out every 5–6 months. So, it’s not a surprise that a lot of strategies either don’t follow through or there are too many cooks in the kitchen, and strategy gets a little bit muddled as a result.” Secondly, when the strategy does eventually make it to the ground-floor and needs to be executed, things have often moved on, and the market responses are rarely the ones you expect. Riffing on Peter Drucker’s famous quote on uncertainty, Kim explains to his students that, “Instead of trying to think of something brilliant to do tomorrow, why don’t you think of something very actionable today that prepares us for what we know will be a totally messy, crazy, unpredictable tomorrow.” 3.A Business Executive’s Response The business executive’s job is to not only set the direction, build a climate of trust, and create the energy for change—but also to be willing to test the assumptions and constraints around a given problem. Increasingly the answers will lie outside of a given industry, and thus require leaders to be broader in their horizon-scanning and more open to alternative paths forward. If you are interested in learning more about why business do indeed need a a strategy for a messy tomorrow – the let us help. John Kim is available to speak regarding this topic – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Playing dirty in 2020 – but does negative advertising actually work in elections?
2020 has been a historic year – on so many fronts. And as the summer of an election year approaches – soon we will be inundated with speeches, policies, promise and advertisements for what might be the most hotly contested and divisive election on record. Political advertising comes in many forms. Social media will be the new battle ground but hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent between now and November in traditional areas like television, radio and print. As we all know, no one ‘wants’ to go negative. In fact, most campaigns make (and soon break) their first promise to run a clean and positive campaign. But usually, the inevitable happens and the ads go negative. Now that the June primaries are in the books except for the June 23 runoffs, the countdown to November’s election is underway. You’ll gradually see more and more political advertising. On the state and national levels, most of the pitches to date have been building up a particular candidate. Negativity has not been at the level of elections in the past. Look for that to change. It was true then and it will be true now. Writing ahead of the 2018 midterm election, a reporter for InsideSources.com, Andrew Solender, cited a study shedding light on why negative advertising is so prevalent in elections. Michael Lewis and David A. Schweidel of Emory University and Yanwen Wang of the University of British Columbia initially planned to look at using social media as a tool for predicting election results. But as social media rapidly became commonplace in elections, they shifted their focus to the impact and efficacy of negative advertising, a staple of elections. “For forever, voters have expressed disgust with the level of negative advertising,” Lewis said, “but we see a lot of it. So, [the question was] does it actually work?” According to the data their study produced, it does. But under certain conditions. Looking at correlations between the volume of negative ads and the vote shares achieved by U.S. Senate candidates in 2010 and 2012, the researchers found that “while positive political advertising does not affect two-party vote share, negative political advertising has a significant positive effect on two-party vote shares.” However, they also found that the source of the ads makes a difference in the ads’ efficacy, noting “negative advertising sponsored by PACs is significantly less effective than that sponsored by the candidate or party in affecting two-party vote shares.” June 18 - The Times and Democrat The road to the White House, and just about every other elected office up for grabs this November will be under heavy scrutiny and lots of coverage. If you’re a journalist covering this topic – then let our experts help. Professor Michael Lewis is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Professor Lewis is an expert in political marketing and is available to speak to media – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
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.
People with outgoing personalities get noticed. Heads turn toward those with charismatic voices, emotional speech, high energy, empathetic gestures, and engaging smiles, but on the corporate front, how do these traits come to bear on executive compensation, hiring, and firm outcomes? “The short answer is that extraversion is associated with positive career and firm outcomes,” said T. Clifton Green, professor of finance at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, whose published work Executive Extraversion: Career Firm and Outcomes (The Accounting Review, 2019), explores this phenomenon. The study, with coauthors Russell Jame 10PhD, University of Kentucky’s Gatton College of Business and Economics, and Brandon Lock 12BBA Baruch College’s Zicklin School of Business, City University of New York, highlights the role of personality traits in explaining executive promotions, job tenure, and outside board service. Green also finds evidence that having an extraverted CEO bodes well for investor recognition, sales growth, and acquisitions. The study goes on to explain the personality trait of Extraversion, which is often described as “the single most important aspect of an individual’s personality,” according to Green, with the other of the Big Five traits being Agreeableness, Openness, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness. Extraverts tend to be outgoing and gain energy from being around others, whereas introverts tend to be more reserved and recharge through solitude. Psychology research identifies extraversion as the personality trait most closely associated with leadership emergence. The study linked above is available for reading – and if you are a journalist looking to learn more or cover this very interesting topic, then let our experts help. T. Clifton Green is a Professor of Finance at the Goizueta Business School. He is an expert in the areas of market microstructure, with an emphasis on behavioral finance and his research has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Financial Times, and on CNBC.
