Shelley Xin Li
Shelley Xin Li is a doctoral candidate in the Accounting and Management unit at Harvard Business School. She studies how firms use management control and corporate governance mechanisms to drive learning, innovation, and long-term performance at both the organization and sub-organization levels. Contributing to the emerging literature in economics and accounting on motivating and managing innovation, her job market paper collects rich data at the individual and project level, and examines the conditions under which relaxing time constraints on execution tasks is associated with a higher probability of employees initiating bottom-up innovations. Shelley is expected to graduate in May 2016.
Prior to Harvard, Shelley worked as a financial reporting specialist. She received double Bachelor degrees in Economics and Law from Nankai University, and a M.A. in Economics from Duke University. She is a Certified Management Accountant and a Certified Financial Risk Manager.
The Effect of Target Difficulty and Incentives on Target Completion: The Case of Reducing Carbon Emissions
Setting targets and providing monetary incentives are two widely used motivating tools to achieve desirable organizational outcomes. We focus on reduction of carbon emissions as a setting in which to examine how target difficulty and monetary incentives provided to managers affect the degree of target completion. We use a novel dataset compiled by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) that yields a sample of 1,127 firms from around the world. We find that firms setting more difficult targets or providing monetary incentives are able to complete a higher percentage of the target. The effect of target difficulty on target completion is nonlinear: above a certain level, stretching the target decreases the percentage of target completion. Moreover, we find that bundling difficult targets together with monetary incentives negatively affects the degree of target completion, suggesting that these two motivating tools act as substitutes in our setting. Finally, we provide evidence that both target difficulty and monetary incentives motivate managers to a) undertake more carbon reducing projects that generate more carbon savings, and b) invest more money in such projects, without increasing the average payback period of the project portfolio.
Motivation and Incentives;
Motivation and Incentives;
Haier: Zero Distance to the Customer (C)
Haier: Zero Distance to the Customer (A)
Allied Electronics Corporation Ltd: Linking Compensation to Sustainability Metrics
Robert Venter, second-generation Chief Executive (CE) of family-owned Allied Electronics Corporation Ltd (Altron), considered the pros and cons of more clearly linking the firm's compensation system to sustainability performance. In June 2011, Altron, a conglomerate headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa, controlled more than 200 companies in Africa, Europe, the US, the UK, Australia, and the Far East. More than 14,000 employees designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed a range of telecommunications, electronics, power electronics, and information technology systems and products. Having made a clear commitment to sustainable development, Venter was confident that the commitment was shared across the senior management team. However, there appeared to be more acceptance in the operating units for meeting financial targets than for meeting sustainability targets. Did the existing incentive structure send the correct message about the sustainability-oriented corporate strategy? Looking at the reshaped strategic themes, Venter considered the pros and cons of more clearly linking the firm's compensation system to sustainability performance.
Keywords: Compensation and Benefits;
Motivation and Incentives;
Dow Chemical: Innovating for Sustainability
Dow Chemical is one of the few major American industrial corporations that was founded in the late 19th century that is still in existence. From its origins producing bromine out of the brine underneath Midland, Michigan, the company has evolved from a diversified commodity chemical company to an advanced materials company whose products and services can make its clients more sustainable. During the 1960s and 1970s the company received a series of external shocks in the form of negative public opinion for some of its activities. These challenged the company's perception as being a "good company" and made it realize it needed to more proactively seek outside perspectives on how the company was viewed and what it should do. This led to the formation of the Corporate Environmental Advisory Council in 1992 which was renamed the Sustainability External Advisory Council (SEAC) in 2008. With substantial input from the SEAC, the company set two ambitious sets of ten-year goals: 1996-2005 and 2006-2015 and was largely successful in meeting them or on the way to doing so. In 2011, Neil Hawkins, Vice President of Sustainability and EH&S (Environmental, Health and Safety) is trying to decide what the content and format of the next ten-year goals should be to ensure the company's viability on its 200th birthday. Should they be incremental goals like the ones for 2005 or ambitious stretch targets like the ones for 2015? Or should they be broad statements of principles that encourage innovating for sustainability throughout the company? A further challenge facing the company is that it was rapidly globalizing with a large portion of its workforce outside its Midland, Michigan headquarters, making it even more difficult to preserve a common culture and commitment to sustainability.
Keywords: Innovation Strategy;