Search

Screening theory explains how decision-makers search for and use external cues to overcome information asymmetry problems under conditions of uncertainty. We introduce screen credibility, screen necessity, and screen salience to the screener as boundary conditions that determine screen efficacy. We test our ideas in the context of corporate venture capital (CVC) funding aimed at industries where firms do not yet compete. These decisions are fraught with uncertainty, so we suggest that CVC decision-makers use the industry shareholdings of a firm's quality shareholders, who are knowledgeable about many industries, as a screen to help them decide whether to continue or terminate CVC funding in that industry. We also hypothesize that screen credibility, screen necessity, and screen salience to the screener condition the fundamental screening relationship. Analysis of CVC funding termination over a period of two decades confirms our ideas. A policy-capturing study administered to executives with CVC experience offers additional support. Our study thus extends screening theory by identifying the factors that activate a screen within the decision-making process. We also add a unique element to the empirical body of CVC research as we uncover the influence of corporate ownership on CVC decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Volitional trait change—the idea that people can willfully change their personality—marks an important advancement for personality science beyond historic views of traits as relatively immutable. We applaud Dupré and Wille's (2024) extension and application of how volitional trait change could impact personnel selection. In this response, we aim to contribute to this discussion by focusing on three critical considerations for the applicability of PDGs to personnel selection—time (how quickly traits can change), degree (how much traits can change), and perspective (who perceives trait change). We concur that personality development has untapped potential in personnel selection and offer suggestions and caveats for how organizations might best realize it. We are excited about a new frontier in extending personality development to organizational settings and are optimistic that doing so would appreciably benefit employees, organizations, and the selection literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers and gatekeepers lack clarity about the circumstances under which using old data to test hypotheses is appropriate or inappropriate. In response to this complex issue, we first define what makes data "old." We then suggest that using old data is justifiable (a) when examining a past event, (b) when recent data are not available, or (c) when the data were collected painstakingly. Scholars should avoid using old data if none of these conditions exist. Further, authors should be forthcoming about the age of their data and, in the case of a rejected journal submission, update the data whenever possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presenter's paradox is a phenomenon wherein adding low-value information alongside high-value information reduces the overall effectiveness of communication. This is because receivers tend to evaluate messages using an averaging, rather than additive, approach. In the context of journal submissions, the presenter's paradox arises when authors undermine their papers' value by adding extra components that fail to maintain the high standard established in the core of the paper. These additions might take the form of excessive control variables, supplementary analyses, hypotheses, words, tables, figures, or citations. We argue that authors should construct journal submissions with the presenter's paradox in mind––because in many cases, less is more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have investigated how shareholder activism by institutional investors—organizations that manage money on behalf of clients—directly shapes the actions of firms that are targeted for activism. We shift attention to an indirect process we call "portfolio spillover"—the extent to which activist behavior targeted toward a firm in an investor's portfolio of holdings influences actions by other firms that are not presently targeted for activism. We examine portfolio spillover by extending the awareness–motivation–capability framework from its traditional domain of competitive dynamics to the governance arena. We theorize that firms will be more likely to respond to investors targeting other portfolio members to the extent that those firms become aware of the implicit threat of activism. We also develop and test theory about how the capability of activists to launch a successful campaign and the motivation of firms to react can moderate this relationship. Using data from a sample of S&P 1500 companies from 2000–2013, we find that firms restructure and reduce growth in response to portfolio spillover. These relationships are stronger when activist investors have capability to attack and firms have motivation to respond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational and applied sciences have long struggled with improving causal inference in quasi-experiments. We introduce organizational researchers to propensity scoring, a statistical technique that has become popular in other applied sciences as a means for improving internal validity. Propensity scoring statistically models how individuals in a quasi-experiment have been assigned to conditions in order to estimate treatment effects among individuals with approximately equal probabilities of receiving the treatment. If propensity scores are created from relevant covariates, matching on the propensity score makes treatment assignment ignorable and approximates a true experimental design. We illustrate how matching on the propensity score can be applied by using 2 examples: examining the effects of online instruction and estimating the benefits of preparatory coaching for the SAT. In both cases, propensity-scoring methods effectively reduced inequivalence between treatment and control groups on many variables. Propensity scoring stands out as a valuable technique capable of improving causal inference from many of organizational research's quasi-experiments. (Contains 5 tables, 1 figure and 7 footnotes.)

The bulk of personality research has been built from self-report measures of personality. However, collecting personality ratings from other-raters, such as family, friends, and even strangers, is a dramatically underutilized method that allows better explanation and prediction of personality's role in many domains of psychology. Drawing hypotheses from D. C. Funder's (1995) realistic accuracy model about trait and information moderators of accuracy, we offer 3 meta-analyses to help researchers and applied psychologists understand and interpret both consistencies and unique insights afforded by other-ratings of personality. These meta-analyses integrate findings based on 44,178 target individuals rated across 263 independent samples. Each meta-analysis assessed the accuracy of observer ratings, as indexed by interrater consensus/reliability (Study 1), self-other correlations (Study 2), and predictions of behavior (Study 3). The results show that although increased frequency of interacting with targets does improve accuracy in rating personality, informants' interpersonal intimacy with the target is necessary for substantial increases in other-rating accuracy. Interpersonal intimacy improved accuracy especially for traits low in visibility (e.g., Emotional Stability) but only minimally for traits high in evaluativeness (e.g., Agreeableness). In addition, observer ratings were strong predictors of behaviors. When the criterion was academic achievement or job performance, other-ratings yielded predictive validities substantially greater than and incremental to self-ratings. These findings indicate that extraordinary value can gained by using other-reports to measure personality, and these findings provide guidelines toward enriching personality theory. Various subfields of psychology in which personality variables are systematically assessed and utilized in research and practice can benefit tremendously from use of others' ratings to measure personality variables. (Contains 11 tables, 1 figure, and 4 footnotes.)

Economists have long held that bringing firms under the umbrella of a common ownership structure creates monopolistic conditions that reduce competition. We challenge this view by investigating competition between firms in a nuanced manner. We examine the competitive and performance implications of "common institutional ownership," which occurs when an institutional investor owns a sizeable number of shares in two publicly traded firms. We argue that rival firms with common ownership structures will engage in dissimilar competitive action repertoires to avoid direct competition with each other. Competing aggressively, but with dissimilar action repertoires, allows rivals to maintain high levels of performance. Competing with dissimilar action repertoires also helps ensure that performance disparity between the two firms remains low. In other words, competitive aggressiveness with dissimilar action repertoires yields an optimal competitive solution for rival firms and their common owners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]