Key Areas of Research
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
Does earnings management matter for strategy research?
Strategic Managment Journal, August 2025
Strategic management research often uses accounting data, despite well-known concerns that earnings management could obscure the link between actual and measured performance. We apply methods from the econometric literature on bunching to estimate that around 15 percent of firm-year observations in Compustat manipulate accounting earnings to achieve profitability. We show that cash-based performance measures are less susceptible to manipulation and that the choice of accrual versus cash-based measures “matters” for two classic strategy research questions: a decomposition of ROA variance and an analysis of persistence in firm performance. These findings underscore the importance of robustness testing and contribute to an emerging literature that reconsiders the link between theoretical constructs and empirical performance measures.
Gibbs (Purdue), Simcoe (Boston U), and Waguespack (Maryland)
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)
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)
The Theory-Based View and Strategic Pivots: The Effects of Theorization and Experimentation on the Type and Nature of Pivots
Strategy Science
We examine how formalization in cognitive processes (theorization) and evidence evaluation (experimentation) influence the type (frequency and radicalness) and nature (impetus, clarity, and coherence) of entrepreneurial pivots. We use a mixed-method research design to analyze rich data from over 1,600 interviews with 261 entrepreneurs within a randomized control trial in London. A quantitative analysis that complements human-coded and machine learning-coded measures reveals that conditional on pivoting, theorization and experimentation are complementary in their association with making single radical pivots. The extensive qualitative-case comparison further elucidates interactions between theorization and experimentation that generate differences in the nature of pivots that range from purposeful (clear and coherent rationale deriving from articulated theory and experimentation), postulatory (informed by articulated theory but not incorporating nuances or surprises generated from experimentation), and remedial (stemming from adjustments to preformed theories that drew on prior experiences) to reactive (driven by environmental stimuli absent a clear theory of value). These insights contribute to the theory-driven strategic decision-making literature and offer practical insights for entrepreneurs, incubators, and policymakers on the benefits of a scientific approach to entrepreneurship.
Valentine, Jacob (Doctoral Candidate, University of Maryland); Novelli, Elena (Professor, Bayes Business School); Agarwal, Rajshree (Lamone Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, University of Maryland)