Séminaires de Recherche


Intervenant : Sergey Chernenko
Fisher College of Business

15 mars 2018 - De 14h00 à 15h15


Intervenant : Dragon Tang
School of Economics and Finance, HKU

8 mars 2018 - De 14h00 à 15h15


Intervenant : Geert Bekaert
Columbia Business School

1 mars 2018 - De 14h00 à 15h15


Intervenant : Fred Malherbe
London Business School

7 décembre 2017 - T015 - De 14h00 à 15h15


Intervenant : Raman Uppal
EDHEC Business School

30 novembre 2017 - T025 - De 14h00 à 15h15


Intervenant : Andrea Vedolin

23 novembre 2017 - T004 - De 14h00 à 15h15

Team Stability and Performance: Evidence from Private Equity


Intervenant : Francesca Cornelli
London Business School

16 novembre 2017 - T004 - De 14h00 à 15h15


We examine the relation between team turnover and firm performance
studying the private equity industry. Using a unique data set that tracks over
time teams in 138 PE managers and their performance, we uncover a positive
relation between turnover and fund performance. We propose and confirm in
the data two channels that explain our findings: i) in the short-run, performance
improves when bad performers are fired, ii) in the long-run, turnover
helps teams to adapt and replenish their skills in response to shifting external
demand. Our findings suggest that frictions coming from informational
asymmetries may deter optimal turnover. These findings are surprising given
the common belief among PE investors that team stability is key to long-term


Intervenant : Sabrina Howell
NYU Stern School of Business

9 novembre 2017 - T017 - De 11h00 à 12h15

When Two Heads Are Worse than One: Understanding the Costs of Co-Leadership

Management et Ressources Humaines

Intervenant : Frederic Godart

7 novembre 2017 - Bernard Ramanantsoa room - De 10h45 à 12h15

The present research examined the effectiveness of co-leadership, a situation where two individuals jointly occupy the same formally assigned role at the top of a hierarchy. We integrate insights from the social hierarchy and leadership literatures to present the Social Hierarchy Model of Co-Leadership. This model proposes that co-leadership generally hurts team performance because co-led teams are more likely than solo-led teams to suffer from coordination and conflict problems. However, our model also proposes that when the co-leaders have a strong relationship, this underperformance will disappear. Four studies using qualitative, experimental, and archival data support this model. Our qualitative study established the prevalence of co-leadership configurations and how co-leaders affect team processes and performance. Our experiment established causality: teams randomly assigned to have co-leaders were less creative than solo-lead teams. Archival analyses of mountaineering expeditions replicated the negative effects of co-leadership: co-led teams were more likely to experience a fatality than solo-led teams. Additional archival analyses of high-end fashion design teams replicated the negative effects of co-leadership and found that co-leadership no longer hurt creativity when the co-leaders were co-founders of their firm. The current data and the Social Hierarchy Model of Co-Leadership offer numerous theoretical and practical implications.

Are policymakers ambiguity averse?

Economie et Sciences de la décision

Intervenant : Professeur Loïc Berger

26 octobre 2017 - HEC Campus - Bâtiment T - Salle T017 - De 14h00 à 15h00

We investigate the ambiguity preferences of a unique sample of real-life policymakers at the Paris UN climate conference (COP21). We find that policymakers are generally ambiguity averse. Using a simple design which explicitly makes the distinction between objective and subjective probabilities presented in different layers, we are moreover able to detect a strong association between preferences towards model uncertainty and those towards ambiguity. These results suggest that the preferences policymakers exhibit towards ambiguity are not necessarily due to an irrational behavior (such as the inability to reduce compound lotteries), but rather to intrinsic preferences over unknown probabilities, thus shedding new light on the role that ambiguity models can play in informing policymaking. Results are confirmed in a laboratory experiment with university students.