Behavioral Empirics and Field Experiments

Ibanez, Maria R.; Staats, Bradley R.

doi:10.1002/9781119138341.ch4

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, researchers must carefully consider the use of financial incentives when examining creativity because they induce extrinsic motivation (see Section 3), which might interfere with the experimental effects of interest Third, one can move beyond the laboratory and use quasi-experimental designs such as field experiments (Hauser et al, 2017). Field experiments are based within organizations, use real employees and thus can estimate experimental effects within real settings, using high stakes tasks while accounting for complex relationships (e.g., long-standing relationships with leaders) that are difficult to simulate in laboratory settings (e.g., Ibanez and Staats, 2016). None of the experimental studies in our sample were field experiments and all used student samples.…”

Section: Experimental Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations

Hughes

Lee

Tian

et al. 2018

The Leadership Quarterly

669

710

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leadership is a key predictor of employee, team, and organizational creativity and innovation. Research in this area holds great promise for the development of intriguing theory and impactful policy implications, but only if empirical studies are conducted rigorously. In the current paper, we report a comprehensive review of a large number of empirical studies (N = 195) exploring leadership and workplace creativity and innovation. Using this article cache, we conducted a number of systematic analyses and built narrative arguments documenting observed trends in five areas. First, we review and offer improved definitions of creativity and innovation. Second, we conduct a systematic review of the main effects of leadership upon creativity and innovation and the variables assumed to moderate these effects. Third, we conduct a systematic review of mediating variables. Fourth, we examine whether the study designs commonly employed are suitable to estimate the causal models central to the field. Fifth, we conduct a critical review of the creativity and innovation measures used, noting that most are sub-optimal. Within these sections, we present a number of taxonomies that organize the extant research, highlight understudied areas, and serve as a guide for future variable selection. We conclude by highlighting key suggestions for future research that we hope will reorient the field and improve the rigour of future research such that we can build more reliable and useful theories and policy recommendations.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations

Hughes

Lee

Tian

et al. 2018

The Leadership Quarterly

669

710

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relatedly, we recommend readers interested in the "mechanics" and "how to's" of carrying out their own first field experiment to the many helpful guides that exist on the topic, such as Boruch and Wothke (1985), Eden (2017), Gerber and Green (2012), Glennerster and Takavarasha (2013), Hauser and Luca (2015a), Ibanez and Staats (2016), King et al (2013) and List (2011).) So, if field experiments are not a recent invention, why are they not more prevalent in organizational behavior?…”

Section: Studies That Induce a Change In A Randomly Selected Subset Omentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We argue that field experiments bridge the gap between field research and causal-driven laboratory studies by bringing causality to field research. Like other field research, they can capture behaviors and motivations that are almost impossible to capture in a lab (e.g., long-held beliefs about one's role on a team, complicated and multi-faceted relationships with bosses or coworkers, the high stakes of actually being hired or fired; see Ibanez and Staats (2016) for an indepth discussion), but can also parse out these complexities to understand how changing one important variable affects others. In doing so, field experiments are not just "a more complicated lab experiment," nor are they yet another complex field method, but are able to answer a new set of theoretically-driven questions.…”

Section: What Are Field Experiments and Why Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That said, reviewers might want to see replication in other ways, such as complementary analysis from other data sources or different methodological angles (Chatman & Flynn, 2005;Jick, 1979). (For an indepth discussion of field experimental challenges-with, in particular, recommendations on how reviewers might evaluate them-see Ibanez and Staats, 2016. ) It should be noted that all these concerns exist for other methods used in organizational research as well.…”

Section: Practical Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) It should be noted that all these concerns exist for other methods used in organizational research as well. Empirical methods, such as qualitative interviews, face similar challenges in terms of stakeholder buy-in and navigating the complex decision and hierarchical environments of organizations (Ibanez & Staats, 2016). The complexity of obtaining and working with existing data is a well-known challenge for quantitative field researchers -but it is both a challenge and an opportunity: as we have argued above, getting into an organization and helping them figure out, address and ideally solve their problems is a value-creating opportunity for both the organization and the organizational scholar.…”

Section: Practical Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Innovation with field experiments: Studying organizational behaviors in actual organizations

Hauser¹,

Linos

Rogers³

2017

Research in Organizational Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational scholarship centers on understanding organizational context, usually captured through field studies, as well as determining causality, typically with laboratory experiments. We argue that field experiments can bridge these approaches, bringing causality to field research and developing organizational theory in novel ways. We present a taxonomy that proposes when to use an audit field experiment (AFE), procedural field experiment (PFE) or innovation field experiment (IFE) in organizational research and argue that field experiments are more feasible than ever before. With advances in technology, behavioral data has become more available and randomized changes are easier to implement, allowing field experiments to more easily create value-and impact-for scholars and organizations alike.

show abstract

Inventory and ordering decisions: a systematic review on research driven through behavioral experiments

Perera

Fahimnia

Tokar

2020

IJOPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe success of a supply chain is highly reliant on effective inventory and ordering decisions. This paper systematically reviews and analyzes the literature on inventory ordering decisions conducted using behavioral experiments to inform the state-of-the-art.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents the first systematic review of this literature. We systematically identify a body of 101 papers from an initial pool of over 12,000.FindingsExtant literature and industry observations posit that decision makers often deviate from optimal ordering behavior prescribed by the quantitative models. Such deviations are often accompanied by excessive inventory costs and/or lost sales. Understanding how humans make inventory decisions is paramount to minimize the associated consequences. To address this, the field of behavioral operations management has produced a rich body of research on inventory decision-making using behavioral experiments. Our analysis identifies primary research clusters, summarizes key learnings and highlights opportunities for future research in this critical decision-making area.Practical implicationsThe findings will have a significant impact on future research on behavioral inventory ordering decisions while informing practitioners to reach better ordering decisions.Originality/valuePrevious systematic reviews have explored behavioral operations broadly or its subdisciplines such as judgmental forecasting. This paper presents a systematic review that specifically investigates the state-of-the-art of inventory ordering decisions using behavioral experiments.

show abstract

Behavioral Empirics and Field Experiments

Cited by 6 publications

References 80 publications

Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations

Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations

Innovation with field experiments: Studying organizational behaviors in actual organizations

Inventory and ordering decisions: a systematic review on research driven through behavioral experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About