The Research Exchange
Opportunities to work with HBS faculty on experimental field studies
The Research Exchange is a place for Harvard Business School professors and doctoral students to announce field experiments in search of a corporate setting. The ultimate goal: to solve various dilemmas facing companies all over the world. Business managers are encouraged to peruse these listings and consider whether their company might be a good setting for any of these field experiments. By forming a collaborative partnership with an HBS researcher, your firm could gain the competitive advantage of finding answers first—and, ultimately, make a difference for the world of business. More details about field research.
Current Listings:
Transparency & Productivity
To enhance others' performance in organizations, when should we observe others, and when should we not? To enhance our own performance, when should we be observed, and when should we not? Answers to those two pairs of questions often remain asymmetrical: we demand transparency of others but want privacy for ourselves. And yet, if the goal is productivity, there must be a scientific answer to the question of how much observation is ideal versus too much or too little. Based on a proven methodology in his prior research, Assistant ProfessorEthan Bernstein is pursuing additional field studies on how observability of employees--or, conversely, the presence of "boundaries" to constrain it--boosts productivity. He is particularly interested in non-manufacturing settings (e.g., health care, professional services, retail, finance, technology) in a wide array of geographies (e.g., North America, South America, Europe, India, Middle East, Asia).
If you think your company may be interested in pursuing a field study about the impact of transparency on productivity, please write to Ethan Bernstein at ebernstein@hbs.edu with the subject "Research Exchange Field Study."
How can we reduce the gender gap in time-pressure at work?
Stressful deadlines on tasks—whether it be in a professional or academic setting—can be harmful to employee performance and wellbeing. One simple solution could be for employees to ask for a deadline extension. However, across seven studies, we found that people—particularly women—do not ask for more time to work on their work tasks, even when a task deadline is explicitly adjustable. As a result, women in our studies performed less well and experienced greater burnout. Our data also sheds light to a potential solution: informing individuals that a formal policy for an extension request exists reduced the gender gap in willingness to ask for more time.We are seeking to collaborate with an organizational partner to understand whether implementing formal policies around deadline extension requests can also help reduce women’s disadvantage in performance, learning, and task experience relative to their male peers. Our surveys and A/B testing will offer additional insights regarding employee’s task experience, wellbeing, productivity, and time-stress. If your company is interested in taking part in a field study, please contact professor Ashley Whillans (awhillans@hbs.edu).
What makes for effective mentoring relationships?
Mentors play a powerful role in employee development. Research finds that employees with mentors benefit from increased performance, career advancement and job satisfaction. Further, organizations with formal mentorship programs have stronger cultures, less turnover, and more appeal in the eyes of prospective employees. Despite mounting evidence supporting the positive impact of mentoring relationships, little research has examined what contributes to their effectiveness. An important, yet under-explored question is what contributes to effective matches between mentors and mentees. Our research team uses surveys and A/B testing to study the factors that contribute to successful mentoring relationships.
To explore this question, we are seeking an organizational partner that would allow us to examine mentoring relationships at their organization. If your company is interested in taking part in a field study, please contact Professor Francesca Gino or Professor Ting Zhang.
The Causes and Consequences of Employees’ Social Connectedness at Work
Employees want to feel connected at work; a majority of employees say that work relationships are extremely important to their quality of life. Further, employees’ connectedness contributes to their satisfaction, engagement, performance, and turnover. Fundamental misperceptions that employees make about their peers’ relationships, however, undermine their own feelings of connectedness at work. All employees–and new employees in particular–tend to overestimate the number and quality of their colleague’s friendships. These misperceptions decrease employees’ own feelings of connectedness, and have serious implications for employee well-being and performance. Organizations may also play a significant role in contributing to employee misperceptions. Specifically, the way organizations communicate about work relationships might shape employees’ expectations for connectedness at work. Though these messages can influence any employees’ expectations, new employees might be particularly susceptible, threatening organizations’ ability to retain top talent. Almost no research has explored what organizations can do to help employees set realistic social expectations and form satisfying relationships.
Our research seeks to understand:
1. How do individual and organizational processes influence employees’ social connectedness at work?
2. How does employees’ social connectedness influence their well-being, performance, and turnover?
If your company is interested in taking part in a field study, please contact professor Ashley Whillans.
Causes and Consequences of Withholding Critical Feedback in Organizations
Organizations invest heavily in evaluation and feedback programs for their employees because it is instrumental to their professional development. When critical feedback is withheld, professional development can stall. We hypothesize that leaders who belong to a majority group (e.g., men) are more likely to withhold critical feedback from employees who belong to a minority group (e.g., women) because they do not want to appear biased. We further hypothesize that withholding critical feedback inhibits the professional development of employees who belong to minority groups, and that this hinders organizational goals to increase diversity in management.
To test these hypotheses we are seeking a partner organization that will provide us with access to employee evaluations. We will first anonymize the evaluations so that only the gender and race of the manager and employee are known. Our research team will then code the content of each review to reflect the level of critical feedback contained in each review. Finally, we will analyze the coded data to assess the extent to which leaders who belong to a majority group withhold critical feedback from employees who belong to a minority group. If our hypotheses are supported, we will work with our field partner to develop an organizational “nudge” that seeks to equalize the level of critical feedback that employees receive, regardless of their gender or race.
If your company is interested in taking part in a field study, please contact professor Ashley Whillans.
Best Practices for Considering Contract Workers
The on-demand or gig economy is part of a trend that is reshaping the relationship between firms and workers. As one part of this trend, technological advances make it possible for firms to tap into distant talent by hiring and managing contract workers living in distant places.
While broader implications for the labor market have received much recent attention, little is known about best practices for managers who may be choosing whether or not to utilize on-demand or arms-length contract workers in their own organizations. A line of work by Assistant Professor Christopher Stanton seeks to understand the conditions under which managers will find it worthwhile to tap into the contingent workforce.
If your company already uses contingent workers and is interested in studying management practices or if your company is interested in studying the introduction of contingent workers, please write to Christopher Stanton at cstanton@hbs.edu. (Note that Stanton is seeking companies in the United States, Canada, or the United Kingdom.)
An Important Note About Field Research:
Companies hosting and participating in a field study must understand that they are agreeing to be part of a scientific experiment in which the researcher directs the process. Compared with a simple trial, an experiment provides a more accurate assessment of policy or procedural changes by including a "treatment" group of employees (who are testing out a new idea) and a "control" group of employees (who are conducting business as usual). The process enables conclusions to be drawn about whether any subsequent outcome differences result from the change itself or from other external factors. Results are owned by the researcher and intended for publication; participating firms can choose whether to be identified or remain unnamed in the published research. There is no charge for participating, and aggregated results will be provided for the participating company. While not always conclusive, studies are always educational and often fun. Company authorization is required for participation.
HBS researchers interested in listing a field study through The Research Exchange should send a note to Danielle Kost at dkost@hbs.edu.
HBS Working Knowledge
Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
Harvard Business School
Soldiers Field Road
Boston, MA 02163
Customer Service
Editor
Newsletter Sign-Up
Reprint Permissions