KU School of Business faculty

In 2025, Professor Brian Anderson co-authored a paper titled “Weathering the pivot: Stability and turnover in new venture teams,” published in the Journal of Business Venturing Insights.

The study examines the impact on startup teams when their company undergoes a significant change in direction, commonly referred to as a “pivot.” Typically, research suggests that such changes lead people to leave the team because their roles or skills no longer align. However, this paper reveals a surprising finding: in most cases, team members do not leave after a pivot. Instead, the bonds and commitment that people feel toward their venture often keep them together. The research highlights that emotional and relational ties are just as important as economic or structural reasons in explaining why teams remain intact during significant changes.

In 2025, Professor Gjergji Cici co-authored a paper titled “Finding your calling: Matching skills with jobs in the mutual fund industry,” published in Management Science.

This study examines how mutual fund companies can enhance performance by ensuring that fund managers are assigned to the most suitable role based on their skills. The study demonstrates that when managers are matched with an investment style that aligns with their abilities, they achieve significantly better results compared to their peers. Fund companies then take advantage of this by assigning these managers to more and larger funds, charging higher fees on their funds, and using them to mentor colleagues. Overall, the research demonstrates that finding the right “fit” between managers’ skills and their investment style creates significant value for both the company and investors.

In 2024, Professor Chan Li co-authored a paper titled “Audit firms’ corporate social responsibility activities and auditor reputation,” published in Accounting, Organizations and Society.

This study investigates whether audit firms can enhance their reputation by engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, including making donations, undertaking environmental projects, or supporting employees and local communities. The authors find that those who engage in CSR tend to attract more clients in the next year. The effect is especially pronounced for smaller firms that lack the reputation of Big 4 firms or industry specialists. They also show that companies invested in CSR are more likely to hire audit firms involved in CSR. The study shows that CSR can be a valuable approach for firms to build their reputation and expand their client base.

In 2023, Professor Jessica Li co-authored a paper titled "Benefactor-versus Recipient-Focused Charitable Appeals: How to Leverage In-Group Bias to Promote Donations for Out-Group Recipients," published in the Journal of Advertising.

This study examines how charities can design fundraising messages to encourage giving, especially when donations are intended for people outside the donor’s social group. Traditionally, appeals feature the beneficiaries (e.g., a child in need), but these can backfire as viewers may experience emotional fatigue or give less when the recipients are dissimilar from themselves. The authors test an alternative: benefactor-focused appeals, which spotlight individuals donors can relate to (e.g., an American volunteer doctor). They find that such appeals significantly increase donations because donors feel a greater connection to the benefactor, encouraging them to provide more support to individuals from communities different from their own.

In 2024, Professor Nathan Meikle co-authored a paper titled “Unaware and unaccepting: Human biases and the advent of artificial intelligence,” published in Technology, Mind, and Behavior.

This study explores why people often struggle to understand the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). The authors point out two key blind spots. First, people underestimate how quickly AI can improve; they think progress will be slow and steady, when AI can leap forward in sudden, dramatic ways. Second, many resist the idea that AI could ever surpass human intelligence, even when evidence suggests it may be on the horizon. These human biases make it more challenging for society, businesses, and policymakers to prepare for the real risks and opportunities that AI presents. The paper highlights how these misunderstandings could delay important conversations about the ethics, regulation, and responsible adoption of AI.