Faculty & Research

• HBS Book

It is easy to condemn obvious wrongdoers such as Elizabeth Holmes, Adam Neumann, Harvey Weinstein, and the Sackler family. But we rarely think about the many people who supported their unethical or criminal behavior. In each case there was a supporting cast of complicitors: business partners, employees, investors, news organizations, and others. And, whether we’re aware of it or not, almost all of us have been complicit in the unethical behavior of others. In Complicit, HBS professor Max Bazerman confronts our complicity head-on and offers strategies for recognizing and avoiding the psychological and other traps that lead us to ignore, condone, or actively support wrongdoing in our businesses, organizations, communities, politics, and more.

• Harvard Business Review 101, no. 1 (Jan-Feb 2023): 45-49.

A lot of leaders believe that the formula for attracting and keeping talent is simple: Just ask people what they want and give it to them. The problem is, that approach tends to address only the material aspects of jobs that are top of employees’ minds at the moment, like pay or flexibility. And those offerings are easy for rivals to imitate and have the least enduring impact on retention. Companies instead should focus on what workers need to thrive over the long term, balancing material offerings with opportunities to grow, connection and community, and meaning and purpose.

• Digital Initiative

Even if algorithms make better predictions than humans on average, humans may sometimes have “private” information which an algorithm does not have access to that can improve performance. How can we help humans effectively use and adjust recommendations made by algorithms in such situations? When deciding whether and how to override an algorithm’s recommendations, we hypothesize that people are biased towards following a naïve advice weighting (NAW) heuristic: they take a weighted average between their own prediction and the algorithm’s, with a constant weight across prediction instances, regardless of whether they have valuable private information.

• Featured Case

It is fall 2022, and open-source AI model company Hugging Face is considering its three areas of priorities: platform development, supporting the open-source community, and pursuing cutting-edge scientific research. As it expands services for enterprise clients, which services should it prioritize? Will these projects be in line with Hugging Face’s volunteer community? Further, Hugging Face decided to remove a model uploaded by a contributor, due to the potential harm the leadership felt it could propagate. Was it the right decision?

• Featured Case

In 2022, Sophie Desormière arrived at French roboshuttle producer Navya, tasked with charting a new course in a challenging sector. The company, which had recently listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, was burning through cash reserves and needed to transform the promise of its technology into a credible business with a solid revenue stream. In the short term, Desormière had to decide whether, and if so under what pricing terms, to accept an opportunity that recently emerged in the U.S. However, the opportunity involved renting, rather than selling, and also required Navya to operate the service.

• HBS Working Paper

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives have risen to near the top of the agenda for corporate executives and boards, driven in large part by their perceptions of shareholder interest. We quantify the value that shareholders place on ESG using a revealed preference approach, where shareholders pay higher fees for ESG-oriented index funds in exchange for their financial and non-financial benefits. We find that investors are willing, on average, to pay 20 basis points more per annum for an investment in a fund with an ESG mandate as compared to an otherwise identical mutual fund without an ESG mandate, suggesting that investors as a group expect commensurately higher pre-fee, gross returns, either financial or non-financial, from an ESG mandate.

• Working Paper

Retail investors trade hard-to-value stocks. Controlling for size, stocks with a high share of retail-initiated trades are composed of more intangible capital, have longer duration cash-flows and a higher likelihood of being mispriced. Consistent with retail-heavy stocks being harder to value, we document that such stocks are less sensitive to earnings news. As an additional consequence, the well-known earnings announcer risk premium is limited to low retail stocks only. Further, high-retail stocks are more sensitive to retail order flow and are especially expensive to trade around earnings announcements. Overall, the findings document a new dimension of investor heterogeneity and suggest the comparative advantage of retail in holding hard-to-value stocks.