Gordon K. Adomdza

Incentive Salience and Improved Performance

Using data from 441 call center employees at a large North American financial services firm, we studied how the frequency of thinking about an incentive available for performance led to increased output on an important performance metric. We find that people think more frequently about noncash tangible incentives (merchandise and travel) than cash incentives and that as the frequency of thought increases, performance increases. This leads to a larger performance boost for tangible incentives compared to a cash incentive of equal purchasing power. These results show an additional benefit from the use of tangible incentives and help answer the question regarding the psychological processes which make incentives motivating.

The role of affective biasing in commercializing new ideas

This paper explores the role of ‘affective attachment’ (powerful, emotional attachment) to ones ideas as a source of bias in market entry decisions concerning, but not limited to, technological initiatives. We investigated the effects of such attachment on: evaluations of new ideas and the idea developers’ desire to retain control over the commercialization of these ideas. Our results indicate that entrepreneurs who are experiencing strong affective attachment to their ideas are more willing to accept poorer financial terms, than might be otherwise available to them, in order to maintain control over the ideas. Overall, our findings indicate that affective attachment can interfere with a persons objective evaluation of their ideas, and hence with their potential for future commercialization.

Choosing between a Student‐Run and Professionally Managed Venture Accelerator

This case presents challenges facing a student–run venture accelerator at a major university in the United States. The student–run model has attracted much media attention for its uniqueness, but it has also raised questions about its sustainability. Signals from a new dean, not invested in the student model, are putting much pressure on the student–chief executive officer to change course—to tweak the student–run model and fight for its future or cave in to pressures to “professionalize” it and let students take a backseat in management. The case highlights challenges in entrepreneurial leadership of a student–run accelerator at the point of initial growth.