Knowledge that Transforms

Recent management trends highlight two techniques firms use to motivate employee effort: (1) fostering employees' organizational identification (OI) and (2) offering employees tangible rewards such as gift cards instead of cash rewards. We use three studies to examine how OI affects employees' reward valuation and how such effects differ depending on the reward type. Study 1 is an experiment, demonstrating that increasing OI increases the emphasis participants place on a reward's symbolic value, which then increases the total value of the reward—to a larger extent when the reward is tangible than when it is cash. Study 2 is an experiment, providing evidence that Study 1 results are robust to using a tangible reward that is not socially consumed, that is selected either by the firm or by the employee, and that is either a good or poor fit with the employee's personal preference. Finally, Study 3 is a survey, asking respondents about actual rewards they received from their current employer and capturing their actual OI with their current employer. Results in Study 3 are inferentially similar to those in Study 1 and Study 2, albeit stronger for rewards of smaller monetary value. Collectively, these results highlight the particular benefit of strong OI on how employees value tangible rewards relative to cash rewards, which should be of interest to incentive system designers.

Using a mixed‐methods approach, I investigate how the terms that firms use to label non‐GAAP earnings interact with investors' scrutiny of non‐GAAP reporting to affect investors' information search behavior and investment decisions. This study informs regulators, who have expressed concern over the mislabeling of non‐GAAP measures, and managers, who are often criticized for their misuse of discretion in non‐GAAP reporting. I first provide descriptive evidence on the non‐GAAP labels used in practice, followed by a survey to understand what investors believe these labels convey about earnings quality. Finally, drawing on theory from psychology, I predict and then find in an experiment that investors who are more likely to scrutinize non‐GAAP reporting are not affected by non‐GAAP labels when deciding to seek out the non‐GAAP reconciliation, and react positively to appropriately used labels. However, investors who are less likely to scrutinize non‐GAAP reporting rely on the cue provided by the label when deciding whether to seek out the non‐GAAP reconciliation, and are more likely to be misled by inappropriately used labels. For regulators, these findings validate concerns related to the mislabeling of non‐GAAP measures and suggest increased non‐GAAP scrutiny helps counteract mislabeling. For managers, these findings suggest investors react favorably to the appropriate use of discretion in non‐GAAP reporting.

Enforcement of non‐compete agreements could affect executives' and directors' incentives to profit from their information advantage. This is because excessive trading profits could result in job termination, which would trigger the restrictions imposed by the non‐compete agreements. We find that executives' and directors' insider trading profits from sales are lower for companies headquartered in states with greater enforcement of non‐compete agreements. The path analyses suggest that high enforcement of non‐compete agreements disincentivizes managers to profit from their information advantage to avoid the possibility of job termination and the cost of job terminations. We also find that insiders in companies headquartered in states with greater enforcement of non‐compete agreements are less likely to exploit their information advantage by timing their sales before unfavorable corporate earnings announcements. The results suggest that enforcement of non‐compete agreements reduces executives' and directors' incentives by imposing costs on future outside employment opportunities.

There is concern that rather than critically deliberating specific circumstances, auditors focus on selecting and documenting defensible audit positions. Currently, subordinate auditors perform tasks mindful that they will be accountable for their work both inside (e.g., partners) and outside (e.g., PCAOB) the firm and adopt “implementation intentions” based on previous review experiences to guide their performance. In the context of fraud‐detection planning, we consider an alternative approach in which subordinate auditors work under contingent reward agreements under which they will be compensated for effective fraud‐detection plans. Lacking an anticipated course of action, they invoke a “deliberative mindset” in order to create a task strategy. In an experiment, auditors completed a fraud‐detection planning task under contingent rewards, accountability, or anonymity. We find that auditors operating under contingent rewards used deliberative mindsets. They were better able to identify potential fraud, select more effective procedures, and plan more hours for effective procedures. Auditors under accountability completed the planning task based on implementation intentions. They focused on broadly increasing audit hours across procedures, including allocating significantly more hours to less effective procedures. Mediation analysis shows that improved planning performance resulted from the use of deliberative mindsets and not implementation intentions.

This study examines boardroom connections that form when corporate executives sit on mutual fund boards. These connections have the potential to facilitate information flow that informs fund investment decisions. I find that fund trades in the executive's firm anticipate future earnings news and stock returns during the period that the fund and firm are connected. The evidence is consistent with a broad scope of information being transferred through the connections, implying the potential for these connections to have an economically significant impact. For example, trades in the executive's firm predict returns both inside and outside of the earnings announcement period, and trades in stocks in the same sector as the executive's firm also predict returns. This study highlights the potential for the role of fund directors to extend beyond their formal monitoring responsibilities and act as conduits of information.

I analyze US multinationals' (MNCs) use of foreign holding companies in their organizational structures and the impact of holding companies on internal capital markets. The look‐thru rule in the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA) reduces the after‐tax cost of foreign intercompany financing transactions. I use TIPRA as a natural experimental setting to test whether a shift in US tax policy that reduces the cost of moving foreign capital increased firms' reliance on foreign holding company subsidiaries. I find that MNCs responded to TIPRA by creating more foreign holding companies. Furthermore, consistent with the policy objectives of TIPRA, I document that MNCs that rely on holding companies gained tax efficiencies in their post‐TIPRA foreign internal capital markets, reducing domestic taxation on foreign earnings and easing financial constraints. Overall, my results expand our understanding of foreign organizational structure decisions and their internal financing benefits. I contribute to the tax literature by documenting a response to TIPRA that sheds light on the growing complexity of foreign subsidiary ownership structures.

We document controlling shareholder (insider) opportunism in an insolvency regime that uses an accounting rule to determine bankruptcy eligibility. Our study sheds light on managerial incentives induced by weak investor protection laws. Using unique data on bankrupt firms from an emerging market, consistent with our prediction, we show insiders intentionally manage earnings downward to understate firm net worth so as to be able to file for bankruptcy. Downward pre‐bankruptcy earnings management is associated with more payments to insiders and weaker performance, post‐filing. A battery of tests suggests our results cannot be fully explained as an artifact of financial distress. Rather, they are consistent with insiders exploiting weak investor protection to extract private benefits at the expense of lenders and outside shareholders. Our study serves as a cautionary tale for all insolvency regimes that use a balance sheet test in an environment with weak creditor protection.

The current biodiversity loss is dramatic. Over the past 50 years, more than 68% of the mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish on Earth have disappeared, putting the planet's survival and its inhabitants—including human beings—at risk. Financialization, or the transformation of nature into financial assets, is increasingly proposed as a solution to the biodiversity crisis. Proponents of financialization believe that assigning a monetary value to nature will incentivize human beings to protect habitats and their species. This article offers a four‐mechanism model of nature's financialization, explaining why it is virtually impossible to financialize nature. We collected data through a unique two‐stage data collection process, including a single case study and additional interviews with conservationists and conservation finance specialists. We analyzed the development of a calculative device, the “Index,” designed to assess the impact of conservation efforts on the survival of endangered species. Conservationists hoped to use the Index to calculate the financial return of a conservation impact bond, a financial instrument designed to finance conservation projects. However, they did not achieve their goal. We discuss the implications for the financialization and conservation literature and the role of accounting therein. We notably question previous accounts of financialization, including the need for financial numbers or financial actors. We ultimately show that a financialization project can transform practices toward financialization, even if the financialization process is not complete.

I examine how changes in analysts' workloads affect their information production. Examining determinants of analysts' information production is important because analyst research affects stock prices and capital allocation decisions. Using periods when analysts work on IPOs to proxy for shocks to their workloads, I predict and find that the accuracy, quantity, and timeliness of analysts' forecasts for non‐IPO firms decline when they are working on IPOs, and they herd closer to the consensus. The reductions in research quality are larger for less experienced analysts, larger IPOs, and less important portfolio firms. Last, I predict and find that information asymmetry increases for non‐IPO firms covered by analysts who are working on IPOs, consistent with analysts' reduction in research quality during IPO assignments negatively affecting the information environment of non‐IPO firms. In sum, I provide the first evidence that analysts' work on IPO deals imposes negative externalities on both the quality of research they produce for the non‐IPO firms they cover and the information environments of these firms, highlighting at least one reason why analyst workload is important to firms and investors.

We design three experiments to examine how group incentives moderate the motivational effects of cash versus tangible rewards. Our first experiment shows that, relative to individual incentives, group incentives can magnify any negative effect of the uncertain attractiveness of a less‐fungible tangible reward (versus cash), as group members must evaluate not only how attractive they find the reward themselves but also how attractive other group members are likely to find it. However, as we show in our second experiment, under group incentives, structuring a tangible reward as a shared experience among group members who like each other can mitigate any demotivating effect of an individually consumed tangible reward vis‐à‐vis a cash reward. A third experiment provides process support for our theory, showing that both the attractiveness of the reward and the degree of certainty that others will also find it attractive jointly and fully mediate our findings. As a whole, our study furthers an understanding of the multifaceted dimensions of tangible rewards, identifying incremental effects that can arise when tangible rewards are combined with group incentives.