Driving a More Prosperous Future
The referral penalty: Decreased perceptions of merit undermine helping behavior towards referred employees
Journal of Applied Psychology
Employee referrals are commonly used by organizations due to their numerous benefits. However, it remains unclear how organizational incumbents, who are uninvolved in the hiring process, perceive and react to referral beneficiaries. Although traditional views suggest that the presence of a referral signals merit, incumbents’ perceptions may differ. We theorize that incumbents are more likely to perceive referral beneficiaries as less merited than non-referred employees, due to perceived legitimacy concerns stemming from a simplified view that reliance on network contacts de facto compensates for lower qualifications. Drawing on equity theory, we then theorize that low merit perceptions lead to less positive and more negative behaviors towards referral beneficiaries, as an attempt to restore the equilibrium between beneficiaries’ perceived inputs (e.g., driven by perceived lower merit) and outputs (e.g., being on payroll). Sampling employees from industries in which referrals are normative (Study 1a) and from a cultural context that is positively predisposed toward referrals (Study 1b) confirmed our theorizing. In a subsequent study, aiming to enhance the generalizability of our findings, we found supporting evidence for perceived equity violations, leading incumbents to engage in corrective behaviors toward referral beneficiaries (Study 2). Finally, testing our hypotheses more conservatively, we found that negative attributions toward referral beneficiaries persisted even when the referred employees had demonstrated high performance, thereby underscoring the robustness of our findings (Study 3). This paper elucidates important unintended consequences of one of the most popular hiring methods - employee referrals - and draws implications for both theory and practice.
Tomova Shakur, Teodora, Texas Christian University and Derfler-Rozin, Rellie, University of Maryland
Should I Stand Up for My Mistreated Colleague? When and Why High-Status Team Members Stand Up for Their Coworkers
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, January 2026
Supervisory mistreatment has adverse consequences for its victims. Coworkers, as observers, can shape victims’ experiences by standing up for them. Yet doing so entails the risk of supervisory retaliation. High-status coworkers should be well-positioned to stand up for victims as they have greater social capital at work. However, such retaliation risks may loom large for them because they are highly motivated to protect what they have. Thus, prior research reports both positive and negative links between status markers and various forms of standing up. We suggest that these inconclusive findings stem from examining individuals’ status only within a single domain (e.g., work) while neglecting how their standing in other groups may shape their experiences in that focal domain. Building on status inconsistency theory (Lenski, 1954) and the concept of status portfolios (Fernandes et al., 2021), we argue that status variance (i.e., inconsistency of status across groups) shapes how high-status employees react to mistreatment. Specifically, we hypothesize that high-status employees with high (compared to low) status variance will experience greater fear of retaliation and reduced willingness to stand up. We argue that this occurs because they perceive their status portfolios as unstable and become more vigilant in protecting their elevated standing at work. Four complementary studies provided support for our hypotheses. We discuss implications for research on bystander intervention, supervisory mistreatment, and status.
Gencay, Oguz, PhD., Bilkent University., Derfler-Rozin, Rellie, PhD. University of Maryland, Arman, Gamze, UWE Bristol
Building credible commitments via board ties: Evidence from the supply chain
November 2025
Using a novel dataset that provides a comprehensive coverage of U.S. firms' industrial supply chain relationships, we find that firms with innovation specific to a buyer are more likely to share a common director with that buyer. This association is stronger when the buyer has a larger number of alternative suppliers. We further find that when a supplier–buyer pair shares a common director, the supplier's R&D investment is more sensitive to the investment opportunities of its buyer. Moreover, such pairs tend to have longer supply chain relationships. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that board ties serve as a credible commitment mechanism to support exchange along the supply chain and safeguard suppliers' buyer-specific investments.
Rebecca Hann, University of Maryland-College Park; Musa Subasi, University of Maryland-College Park; Yue Zheng, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Status-Amplified Deterrence: Paul Manafort’s Prosecution Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act
Organization Science, September 2025
Social control agents often struggle to deter organizational deviance. We propose a theory of “status-amplified deterrence” wherein enforcement’s deterrent effects are amplified when carried out against high-status organizational actors. First, this enforcement is interpreted as willingness and ability for far-reaching enforcement. Next, amplified deterrence occurs as these episodes become widely known through (1) extensive media coverage and (2) the marketing efforts of third-party compliance advisors. We examine this theory in the context of the U.S. Department of Justice’s enforcement against Paul Manafort for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Using a difference-in-differences design, we demonstrate that enforcement against Manafort caused a widespread, sustained, and economically significant reduction in FARA noncompliance. We show supplementary evidence consistent with the idea that deterrence was amplified in significant part by media attention and by law firms referencing the episode while successfully marketing FARA advisory services. We contribute to literature illuminating how organizations, in conjunction with third-party compliance advisors, adjust deviant activities in response to shifting regulatory environments.
Reuben Hurst, Jin Hyung Kim (George Washington University) and Jordan Siegel (University of Michigan)
Breaking ceilings: Debate training promotes leadership emergence by increasing assertiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology
To date, little is known about what interventions can help individuals attain leadership roles in organizations. To address this knowledge gap, we integrate insights from the communication and leadership literatures to test debate training as a novel intervention for leadership emergence. We propose that debate training can increase individuals’ leadership emergence by fostering assertiveness—“an adaptive style of communication in which individuals express their feelings and needs directly, while maintaining respect for others” (American Psychological Association, n.d.)—a valued leadership characteristic in U.S. organizations. Experiment 1 was a three-wave longitudinal field experiment at a Fortune 100 U.S. company. Individuals (N = 471) were randomly assigned to either receive a 9-week debate training or not. Eighteen months later, the treatment-group participants were more likely to have advanced in leadership level than the control-group participants, an effect mediated by assertiveness increase. In a sample twice as large (N = 975), Experiment 2 found that individuals who were randomly assigned to receive debate training (vs. nondebate training or no training) acted more assertively and had higher leadership emergence in a subsequent group activity. Results were consistent across self-rated, group-member-rated, and coder-rated assertiveness. Moderation analyses suggest that the effects of debate training were not significantly different for (a) U.S.- and foreign-born individuals, (b) men and women, or (c) different ethnic groups. Overall, our experiments suggest that debate training can help individuals attain leadership roles by developing their assertiveness.
Jackson Lu (MIT), Michelle Zhao (Washington University in St. Louis), Hui Liao (University of Maryland, Long Jiang Endowed Chair in Business), and Lu Zhang (MIT)
EPA Scrutiny and Voluntary Environmental Disclosures
Review of Accounting Studies
Market participants have called on the SEC to address the lack of disclosures about firms’ environmental impacts, investments, and exposures. However, the frictions that obstruct the flow of environmental information are not well understood. I shed light on these frictions by examining whether scrutiny by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restricts the firm’s voluntary environmental disclosures in earnings conference calls. Consistent with the notion that EPA scrutiny gives rise to disclosure frictions, I find a negative relation between EPA scrutiny and the environmental disclosures of scrutinized firms. This negative relation is concentrated among firms without environmental expert directors, suggesting that environmental governance mitigates the chilling effect of EPA scrutiny. In terms of disclosure quality, I show that environmental disclosures include fewer quantitative details under EPA scrutiny. Collectively, these findings provide insights into the frictions that restrict the flow of environmental information to market participants, an important issue given the SEC’s efforts to improve current disclosure practices.
Mark Zakota, Assistant Professor, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland
CFO Narcissism and the Power of Persuasion Over Analysts: A Mixed-Methods Approach
Review of Accounting Studies
We study the role of CFO narcissism in the intent and ability to positively influence sell-side analysts’ perceptions of the firm. Consistent with narcissists casting favorable impressions on others, we find CFO narcissism is associated with overly optimistic analyst valuations. We then study public persuasion attempts by analyzing conference call transcripts and private persuasion attempts through a laboratory study. In the conference call setting, we provide evidence that narcissistic CFOs use more persuasive language and are more inclined to call on bearish analysts, both of which we link to higher price targets. In the lab study, we simulate a one-on-one conversation and find that narcissists are especially more likely to use coercive methods to induce higher valuations (e.g., threatening to remove private lines of communication). Collectively, we provide evidence that narcissistic CFOs exercise persuasion tactics to favorably influence analysts’ perceptions of firm value.
Chad Ham and Mark Piorkowski - Indiana University; Nick Seybert - University of Maryland; Sean Wang - Southern Methodist University
Conflicted About Coworkers: How Coworker Support Influences Engagement After Status Loss
Personnel Psychology, February 2025
People's needs for status and support are theoretically distinct, yet little research has considered how people cope with having one but not the other. We examine how people react to losing status as a function of whether they typically perceive their coworkers as supportive. Although social support is documented as a resource people can draw on to cope with failure at work, we argue that in the case of failures that implicate status (i.e., status loss), experiencing these events in a more supportive work group may not aid recovery and reengagement. Specifically, we predict that when the preexisting group context is one of more (rather than less) supportive coworkers, status loss may elicit greater ambivalence about those coworker relationships, triggering psychological reactions that undermine engagement. Consistent with this model, in a weekly experience sampling study of working adults (Study 1), having more supportive coworkers led to a stronger negative effect of weekly status loss on subsequent engagement. In scenario-based (Study 2) and high-involvement laboratory (Study 3) experiments featuring different manipulations of coworker support and status loss, we found that when individuals experienced status loss in more (rather than less) supportive work groups, status loss led to lower engagement because it heightened ambivalence about their coworker relationships, which triggered anxiety (Study 2), and self-threat and hurt feelings (Study 3). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Jennifer Carson Marr (UMD), Edward P. Lemay (UMD), Hyunsun Park (Georgia Tech)