IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v33y2022i5p1741-1755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Detrimental Collaborations in Creative Work: Evidence from Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Keyvan Vakili

    (Strategy and Entrepreneurship Department, London Business School, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom)

  • Florenta Teodoridis

    (Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Michaël Bikard

    (Strategy Department, INSEAD, Fontainebleau F-77305, France)

Abstract

Prior research on collaboration and creativity often assumes that individuals choose to collaborate to improve the quality of their output. Given the growing role of collaboration and autonomous teams in creative work, the validity of this assumption has important implications for organizations. We argue that in the presence of a collaboration credit premium—when the sum of fractional credit allocated to each collaborator exceeds 100%—individuals may choose to work together even when the project output is of low quality or when its prospects are diminished by collaborating. We test our argument on a sample of economists in academia using the norm of alphabetical ordering of authors’ surnames on academic articles as an instrument for selection into collaboration. This norm means that economists whose family name begins with a letter from the beginning of the alphabet receive systematically more credit for collaborative work than economists whose family name begins with a letter from the end of the alphabet. We show that, in the presence of a credit premium, individuals may choose to collaborate, even if this choice decreases output quality. Thus, collaboration can create a misalignment between the incentives of creative workers and the prospects of the project.

Suggested Citation

  • Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis & Michaël Bikard, 2022. "Detrimental Collaborations in Creative Work: Evidence from Economics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 1741-1755, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:5:p:1741-1755
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1501
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2021.1501?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:5:p:1741-1755. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.