Ernest H. O’Boyle

The Chrysalis Effect

The issue of a published literature not representative of the population of research is most often discussed in terms of entire studies being suppressed. However, alternative sources of publication bias are questionable research practices (QRPs) that entail post hoc alterations of hypotheses to support data or post hoc alterations of data to support hypotheses. Using general strain theory as an explanatory framework, we outline the means, motives, and opportunities for researchers to better their chances of publication independent of rigor and relevance. We then assess the frequency of QRPs in management research by tracking differences between dissertations and their resulting journal publications. Our primary finding is that from dissertation to journal article, the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses more than doubled (0.82 to 1.00 versus 1.94 to 1.00). The rise in predictive accuracy resulted from the dropping of statistically nonsignificant hypotheses, the addition of statistically significant hypotheses, the reversing of predicted direction of hypotheses, and alterations to data. We conclude with recommendations to help mitigate the problem of an unrepresentative literature that we label the “Chrysalis Effect.”

Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management A Guest Commentary

The discussion regarding questionable research practices (QRPs) in management as well as the broader natural and social sciences has increased substantially in recent years. Despite the attention, questions remain regarding research norms and the implications for both theoretical and practical advancements. The aim of the current article is to address these issues in a question-and-answer format while drawing upon both past research and the results of a series of new studies conducted using a mixed-methods design. Our goal is to encourage a systematic, collegial, and constructive dialogue regarding QRPs in management research.

Drivers and outcomes of team psychological empowerment: A meta-analytic review and model test

Using meta-analysis and structural equation modeling, we examine the unique and combined relationships between team psychological empowerment, its antecedents, and outcomes. First, we seek to extend the team psychological empowerment nomological network by including team members’ affective reactions as an outcome. In addition, we consider the moderating influence of team type, how empowerment was measured, and team size on the relationships between team psychological empowerment, its antecedents, and outcomes. Second, we use our analytical results to clarify a number of theoretical perspectives, but more importantly to offer suggestions regarding where research in the area of team psychological empowerment should proceed. Finally, in keeping with the broader team effectiveness framework, we present our recommendations for future research using the following categories: (a) antecedents, (b) outcomes, (c) moderators, (d) mediators, and (e) additional directions for future research.

Publication Bias in Strategic Management Research

Publication bias is the systematic suppression of research findings due to small magnitude, statistical insignificance, or contradiction of prior findings or theory. We review possible reasons why publication bias may exist in strategy research and examine empirical evidence regarding the influence of publication bias in the field. Overall, we conclude that publication bias affects many, but not all, topics in strategic management research. Correlation inflation due to publication bias ranged in magnitude from .00, indicating no bias, to .19, representing considerable bias. These results suggest that caution should be exercised when interpreting scientific conclusions regarding certain determinants of firm performance, while greater confidence may be expressed in others. We discuss how publication bias can be addressed both philosophically and empirically in the domain of strategy.

A meta-analysis of intergroup forgiveness

In the past decade, interest has flourished in the empirical study of forgiveness in the wake of intergroup conflicts. In the current paper, we sought to empirically integrate the diverse predictors of intergroup forgiveness building on a tripartite model that incorporates affective, cognitive, and constraining features. Using a random effects approach, we meta-analyzed (N = 13,371; k = 43) correlates of intergroup forgiveness across diverse conflicts (e.g. 65% intrastate, 35% interstate) and populations (20 different nationalities; 60% female). We tested the effect of nine distinct predictors and investigated study characteristics as moderators of these effects (i.e. sex of victim and conflict type). Collective guilt [r = 0.49] and trust [r = 0.42] emerged as the strongest facilitators, whereas negative emotions [r = −0.33] and in-group identity [r = −0.32] emerged as the strongest barriers to intergroup forgiveness. We discuss practical applications of these findings.

The two sides of CEO pay injustice: a power law conceptualization of CEO over and underpayment

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which chief executive officers (CEOs) deserve the pay they receive both in terms of over and underpayment.,Rather than using the traditional normal distribution view in which CEO performance clusters around the mean with relatively little variance, the authors adopt a novel power law approach. They studied 22 industries and N = 4,158 CEO-firm combinations for analyses based on Tobin’s Q and N = 5,091 for analyses based on return on assets. Regarding compensation, they measured the CEO distribution based on total compensation and three components of CEO total pay: salary, bonus, and value of options exercised.,In total, 86 percent of CEO performance and 91 percent of CEO pay distributions fit a power law better than a normal distribution, indicating that a minority of CEOs are producing top value for their firms (i.e. CEO performance) and a minority of CEOs are appropriating top value for themselves (i.e. CEO pay). But, the authors also found little overlap between CEOs who are the top performers and CEOs who are the top earners.,The findings shed new light on CEO pay deservingness by using a novel conceptual and methodological lens that highlights systematic over and underpayment. Results suggest a violation of distributive justice and offer little support for agency theory’s efficient contracting hypothesis, which have important implications for agency theory, equity theory, justice theory, and agent risk sharing and agent risk bearing theories.,Results highlight erroneous practices when trying to benchmark CEO pay based on average levels of performance in an industry because the typical approach to CEO compensation based on averages significantly underpays stars and overpays average performers.,Results offer new insights on the extent of over and underpayment. The findings uncover an extremely large non-overlap between the top earning and top performing CEOs and to an extent far greater in magnitude than previously suggested.,Objetivo – El objetivo de nuestro estudio fue examinar si los directores ejecutivos (CEOs) merecen la remuneracion monetaria que reciben.,Metodologia – En lugar de utilizar el enfoque tradicional que asume que la distribucion del rendimiento de CEOs sigue la curva normal (con la mayoria de CEOs agrupados en torno a la media y relativamente poca variacion), adoptamos un enfoque diferente basado en la ley de potencia. Incluimos 22 industrias y N = 4.158 combinaciones de CEO-firma para analisis basados en Tobin’s Q y N = 5.091 para analisis basado en la rentabilidad de los activos. En cuanto a la remuneracion, medimos distribuciones basadas en la remuneracion total y tres componentes del pago completo a los CEOs: salario, bonos, y el valor de las opciones ejercitadas.,Resultados – 86% de las distribuciones de rendimiento de CEOs y el 91% de las distribuciones de pago de los CEO se aproximan mejor a una distribucion de ley de potencia que a una distribucion normal. Esto indica que una minoria de los CEOs produce un valor muy superior para sus empresas (es decir, el rendimiento CEO) y una minoria de los CEOs apropia valor superior para si mismos (es decir, pago de los CEO). Sin embargo, encontramos muy poco solapamiento entre aquellos CEOs que se desempenan mejor y los CEOs que ganan mas.,Implicaciones – Nuestros hallazgos usando una conceptualizacion y metodologia novedosas ponen en relieve que a muchos CEOs se les paga demasiado y que a muchos no se les paga suficiente (en comparacion con su desempeno). Los resultados sugieren una violacion de los principios de justicia distributiva y no apoyan la hipotesis de “contratacion eficiente,” y tienen implicaciones para para la teoria de la agencia, de la equidad, de la justicia, y de la distribucion de riesgos.,Implicaciones practicas – Los resultados destacan las practicas erroneas con respecto a la distribucion de compensacion a CEOs que se basan en los niveles medios de rendimiento en una industria. Estas practicas llevan a no pagar suficiente a los directivos “estrella” y pagar demasiado a los directivos con desempeno medio.,Originalidad/valor – Los resultados ofrecen nuevas perspectivas sobre la relacion entre desempeno y compensacion de CEOs y que los que se desempenan mejor no son los que reciben mas pago, y viceversa. Estas diferencias son mucho mas grandes de que lo que se creia anteriormente.,Objetivo – O objetivo do nosso estudo foi examinar se os CEOs merecem a compensacao monetaria que recebem.,Metodologia – Em vez de utilizar a abordagem tradicional que assume que a distribuicao do desempenho do CEO segue a curva normal (com a maioria dos CEOs agrupados em torno da media e relativamente pouca variacao), adotamos uma abordagem diferente com base num enfoque inovador da lei de potencia. Incluimos 22 industrias e N = 4.158 combinacoes de CEO-empresa para analise baseada no Q de Tobin e N = 5091 para analise baseado na rentabilidade dos ativos. Em relacao a compensacao, medimos as distribuicoes de CEO com base no total de compensacao e tres componentes do pagamento total dos CEOs: salario, bonus e o valor das opcoes exercidas.,Resultados – 86% do desempenho do CEO e 91% das distribuicoes de pagamento do CEO correspondem a uma lei de potencia melhor do que uma distribuicao normal, indicando que uma minoria de CEOs esta produzindo valor superior para suas empresas (ou seja, desempenho do CEO) e uma minoria de CEOs se apropriando do valor superior para si proprios (isto e, o salario do CEO). Mas, tambem encontramos pouca sobreposicao entre CEOs que tem os melhores desempenhos e os CEOs que tem as maiores ganancias.,Implicacoes – Nossas descobertas lancam nova luz sobre o merecimento do pagamento do CEO, usando uma nova lente conceitual e metodologica que destaca o excessivo e o baixo pagamento sistematico. Os resultados sugerem uma violacao da justica distributiva e nao apoiam a hipotese da contratacao eficiente, e tem implicacoes para a teoria da agencia, teoria da igualdade, teoria da justica e distribuicao de riscos.,Implicacoes praticas – Os resultados destacam praticas erroneas quando se tenta benchmark de remuneracao do CEO baseado em niveis medios de desempenho em uma industria, porque essas praticas levam a nao pagar o suficiente aos CEOs “estrela” e pagar em excesso CEOs com desempenho medio.,Originalidade/valor – Os resultados oferecem novas perspectivas sobre a relacao entre desempenho e retribuicao dos CEOs e que os que desempenham melhor nao sao os que recebem um pagamento maior, e vice-versa. Estas diferencas sao muito maiores do que se pensava anteriormente.

The Benefits of Benefits A Dynamic Approach to Motivation-Enhancing Human Resource Practices and Entrepreneurial Survival

A pressing but understudied issue is the high incidence of new venture failure. We propose a model of how motivation-enhancing human resource (MHR) practices mediate the effects of initial human and financial resources of a founding team on firms’ decisions to remain in operation. In this model, we also propose that MHR practices have effects on firm survival that change over time. We test our model with a sample of 1,100 firms tracked for 7 years. We found support for a model where MHR practices partially mediate the effects of initial firm resources and human capital on firm survival. We also found that the effects of MHR practices change over time such that their positive effects on survival become stronger. We conclude with a research agenda and recommendations for how nascent firms can promote survival.A pressing but understudied issue is the high incidence of new venture failure. We propose a model of how motivation-enhancing human resource (MHR) practices mediate the effects of initial human and financial resources of a founding team on firms’ decisions to remain in operation. In this model, we also propose that MHR practices have effects on firm survival that change over time. We test our model with a sample of 1,100 firms tracked for 7 years. We found support for a model where MHR practices partially mediate the effects of initial firm resources and human capital on firm survival. We also found that the effects of MHR practices change over time such that their positive effects on survival become stronger. We conclude with a research agenda and recommendations for how nascent firms can promote survival.

Contextual Undertow of Workplace Deviance by and Within Units: A Systematic Review

Within the constellation of employee misconduct, workplace deviance possesses the somewhat distinctive feature of violating organizational norms. Yet, the burgeoning research examining the social context surrounding workplace deviance typically fails to properly account for it. Interdisciplinary research has demonstrated that within organizations (a) multiple reference groups provide descriptive and injunctive norms about (in)appropriate behavior; (b) even when embedded within the organizational hierarchy, norms are not necessarily consistent across these groups; and (c) the immediate reference group often exerts a crucial influence. Against this background, we discuss prevalent conceptualizations of workplace deviance and systematically review the literature from 1995 to 2017. We present our findings according to external and organizational, leadership, and intraunit antecedents of workplace deviance by and within units, distinguishing, in particular, unit composition, processes and emergent states, climates, and norms. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and methodological avenues for future research.

When the “Best Available Evidence” Doesn’t Win: How Doubts About Science and Scientists Threaten the Future of Evidence-Based Management:

The well documented academic-practice gap has frequently been viewed as a problem to be solved via evidence-based management. Evidence-based management focuses heavily on aggregating and evaluating research evidence to address practical questions via meta-analysis and other forms of systematic review, as well as educating managers and management students on how to differentiate strong from weak research methods. The assumption has been that if researchers produce stronger research findings and disseminate them in manager- and student-accessible venues, the results will be believed and implemented if appropriate to the context. However, these strategies alone are woefully insufficient, as a growing body of evidence suggests that even when individuals are aware of research findings supported by a vast majority of studies, they often choose not to believe them. Sources of this disbelief include growing public distrust of academics, scientific research, and professional expertise in general, as well as negative emotional reactions to specific research findings that threaten people’s cherished beliefs, self-image, self-interest, or social identity. This editorial takes an interdisciplinary approach to explain why people might not believe management research findings and offers strategies for increasing public trust of academics and reducing resistance to self-threatening research findings.

The Benefits of Benefits

A pressing but understudied issue is the high incidence of new venture failure. We propose a model of how motivation-enhancing human resource (MHR) practices mediate the effects of initial human and financial resources of a founding team on firms’ decisions to remain in operation. In this model, we also propose that MHR practices have effects on firm survival that change over time. We test our model with a sample of 1,100 firms tracked for 7 years. We found support for a model where MHR practices partially mediate the effects of initial firm resources and human capital on firm survival. We also found that the effects of MHR practices change over time such that their positive effects on survival become stronger. We conclude with a research agenda and recommendations for how nascent firms can promote survival.A pressing but understudied issue is the high incidence of new venture failure. We propose a model of how motivation-enhancing human resource (MHR) practices mediate the effects of initial human and financial resources of a founding team on firms’ decisions to remain in operation. In this model, we also propose that MHR practices have effects on firm survival that change over time. We test our model with a sample of 1,100 firms tracked for 7 years. We found support for a model where MHR practices partially mediate the effects of initial firm resources and human capital on firm survival. We also found that the effects of MHR practices change over time such that their positive effects on survival become stronger. We conclude with a research agenda and recommendations for how nascent firms can promote survival.