Brain for Business

In a 2022 paper published in Science Advances, our guest today along with co-authors argued that “Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies.”
So what does this mean? And what are the implications for both science and society?

To discuss this I am joined by Professor Nick Light of the Lundquist College of Business at the University of Oregon.

About our guest…
In his research, Nick applies what marketers and psychologists have learned about consumer knowledge, preferences, and risk perceptions to address problems relating to the public’s understanding of science. Nick also studies consumers’ perceptions of the simplicity or complexity of brands, objects, and phenomena, and the downstream consequences of those perceptions.

Prior to joining academia, Nick worked for about 8 years as a marketing manager and strategist for several Fortune 500 brands in New York City and interned at the United Nations.

Nick’s website with more information on his research can be accessed here: www.nicklightresearch.com
The paper discussed in the article - Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues - is open access and available here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038
More information on University of Oregon Center for Science Communication Research can be found here: https://scr.uoregon.edu/
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When people set up their own business or go it alone, it makes sense for to want to establish their own identity, yet sometimes that might come at a cost… what if your identity is so distinctive that potential customers or clients don’t understand what you do or why you are so special?

To explore the question of “optimal distinctiveness” in the context of strategic positioning I am delighted to be joined today by Professor Daphne Demetry.

About our guest...
Daphne Demetry is an Associate Professor of Strategy & Organization and Bensadoun Faculty Scholar in the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University
As an organizational theorist and economic sociologist, Daphne uses primarily ethnographic and qualitative methods to explore questions of how entrepreneurs and organizations create and negotiate meaning as they interact with their audiences. She has explored these questions predominately in the craft and creative fields and especially the culinary industry, e.g., underground and pop-up restaurants, gourmet food trucks, and fine dining establishments.

You can find out more about Daphne’s research here: https://www.mcgill.ca/desautels/daphne-demetry
The article discussed in the interview - Cutting the apron strings: Establishing optimal distinctiveness from mentors in creative industries by Daphne Demetry and Rachel Doern - can be accessed here (open access): https://sms.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smj.70003
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A 2020 article by the polling firm, Gallup, argued that:

“The micromanager has become a bit of a boogeyman in the business world. Nobody wants to work for one. Few managers want to be one. Everyone has a horror story about one.”

To explore the topic of micromanagement and its implications I am delighted to be joined by Dr Catherine Deen.

About our guest…
Catherine Deen is a Senior Lecturer in HR and Organisation Behaviour at the School of Business, University of New South Wales Canberra. As an organisational behaviour researcher, Catherine has a growing reputation for excellent research in the areas of work-related intimate partner aggression, leadership, and the vocational experiences of vulnerable workers. Prior to entering academia, Catherine amassed more than 20 years of industry experience in educational administration, teaching, and research.

Since formally entering academia in 2018, Catherine’s research has been published in a range of top management journals.

To find out more information about Catherine and her research take a look at the following links:
www.catherinedeen.com
https://lead.fiu.edu/news/2024/my-way-or-the-highway.html
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“Collective stupidity is fairly common in organisations. Firms full of very smart individuals who act in reckless ways that destroy them. Governments and nations that engage in acts of self-harm, descending into economic decline or civil war. Armies that repeat failed tactics. It’s easy to see collective stupidity as something others slip into because of their own idiocy or moral failings. But this perspective misses much. We are all party to such follies.”

So wrote our guest today, Professor Sir Geoff Mulgan, in a recent paper on the focus of our conversation: Collective Stupidity and its implications for individuals, organisations and society.

About our guest
Sir Geoff Mulgan CBE is Professor of Collective Intelligence, Public Policy and Social Innovation at University College London (UCL). Prior to that he was Chief Executive of Nesta, the UK’s innovation foundation, between 2011 and the end of 2019. From 1997 to 2004 Geoff had roles in the UK government including director of the Government’s Strategy Unit and head of policy in the Prime Minister’s office. From 2004 to 2011 he was the first Chief Executive of The Young Foundation. He was the first director of the think-tank Demos; and has been a reporter on BBC TV and radio

The article discussed in the interview is open access and is available here:
Mulgan, G. (2025). A Theory of Collective Stupidity in Organisations–and Possible Remedies. Organization Studies, 46(9), 1331-1335.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/01708406251349313
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A forthcoming article by our guests today – appropriately titled “Rethinking Stardom" - argues that:

Star performers are increasingly capturing the attention of both researchers and practitioners alike. However, studies on these uber-performers often employ disparate definitions, theoretical foundations and assumptions, and methods and analyses, which creates significant tension and confusion in the comparison of findings and the formation of a clear understanding of what star performance truly entails and its impact on individuals, teams, and organizations.

To better explore the concept of star performers in organisations I am delighted to be joined by the two authors of this paper: Professor Ernest O’Boyle, Dale Coleman Chair of Management and Professor at Indiana University - Kelley School of Business, and Martin Gotz, Senior Teaching and Research Assistant in the Department of Psychology at the University of Zurich in Switzerland.

The article discussed in the interview is available here:
O'Boyle, E. H., & Götz, M. (2025). Rethinking stardom: A relativistic approach to studying the absolute best performers. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 13.
Rethinking Stardom: A Relativistic Approach to Studying the Absolute Best Performers | Annual Reviews
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.