 |
|
Assembling Expertise: Emerging Governance of Algorithmic Systems in New York City
|
Author: Maximilian Heimstädt, Witten/Herdecke U.
Author: Malte Ziewitz, Cornell U.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Algorithms are increasingly employed in organizations to automate all kinds of expert work. At the same time, these algorithmic systems have been found to perpetuate old biases and generate new ones. Policy-makers thus recently began to push for algorithmic accountability and oversight – modes of governance that inevitably require new experts. To better understand the twisted role of expertise in the governance of algorithmic systems, we present an in-depth case study of attempts to establish a new regime for algorithm governance in New York City. Building on recent studies that present expert work as a collaborative and co-creative rather than competitive and isolated process, we show how actors in NYC engage in three forms of relational work to create a new form of expertise: creating a void, assembling networks, and maintaining distance. With our study, we show that the assembling of expertise as an important, yet mostly neglected antecedent to the creation of new occupational mandates. We further show that ‘expertise’ is not just an analytical category to analyze authority at the workplace, but that when facing the uncertainty of emerging technologies, actors can mobilize ‘expertise’ as a governance resource.
|
|
|
|
Paper is No Longer Available Online: Please contact the author(s).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ingroup ‘Flexibility’: Evidence of Social Influence in Third-Party Regulation Markets
|
Author: Sae-Seul Park, Carnegie Mellon U. - Tepper School of Business
Author: Sunkee Lee, Carnegie Mellon U. - Tepper School of Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We propose and test a group-based mechanism, ingroup bias, as a source of organizational failure for third-party regulators. Extant research examining third-party regulation has mainly investigated threats to objectivity resulting from strategic motivations for regulatory leniency and dyadic exchanges between regulators and regulated entities. We argue that regulatory organizations can fall short of objectivity—even even unintentionally— through ingroup bias, a group-based mechanism that does not rely on either prior or future expected business with the regulated firm, incorporating the larger social environment in which a regulator is embedded. Using proprietary data from a prominent firm in the marine survey industry, which regulates the maritime sector, we exploit a natural experiment based on a high-profile industry accident that dramatically heightened the risks of regulatory leniency. We find that regulators are more lenient with their ingroup clients than outgroup clients, by observing a convergence in outcomes for these groups only after the accident. We further find that this leniency is driven by individuals who identify less with their regulatory profession and are thus more susceptible to ingroup bias. Our findings underscore the importance of categorical biases and identities in regulatory processes and how regulatory firms can inadvertently fail to maintain objectivity.
|
|
|
|
Paper is No Longer Available Online: Please contact the author(s).
|
|
|
|
|
Striking out Swinging: The Upside of Forced Inferiority
|
Author: Brittany Bond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Author: Ethan Poskanzer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will professionals perform worse on core competencies after frustrating compulsory tasks in which they are inferior, as expected from job design and professions theory? Or will they respond by outperforming expectations in core tasks? We test these alternative expectations using a large data set of all at-bats taken in Major League Baseball (MLB) games played under National League (NL) rules from 1997-2018. Exploiting the quasi-random timing of when a pitcher must pitch following their own at-bat, we find that instances where a pitcher makes an out as a batter in the half-inning prior to pitching, the pitcher is then more likely to get the first batters of the following half-inning out than would otherwise be expected controlling for pitcher, inning, and other relevant fixed effects. These results suggest that when professionals engage in a frustrating task, they are likely to over-perform when returning to tasks in which they excel. We support these conclusions with context-specific robustness checks and discuss the managerial implications of these findings.
|
|
|
|
Paper is No Longer Available Online: Please contact the author(s).
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Empirical Investigation into Market Orientation’s Impact on Customer-Based Brand Performance
|
Author: Peuker Victoria, RWTH Aachen U.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theory suggests that market orientation (MO) provides firms with a better understanding of its customers, which ultimately leads to enhanced customer value. However, empirical findings on customers’ outcomes remain scarce and the substantial link between MO and customer-based brand performance is yet to be understood. Grounded on customer-based brand equity theory this study investigates how an increase in MO influences customers’ brand perceptions, particularly in environments characterized by market and technological turbulence. Using large-scale customer data over 10 years, our results reveal that an increase in MO is positively related to an increase in customer-based brand awareness and brand strength. While market turbulence amplifies the positive link between MO and brand strength, technological turbulence weakens this relationship. Our findings entail important implications for marketing literature and for practitioners.
|
|
|
|
Paper is No Longer Available Online: Please contact the author(s).
|
|
|
|
|