William L. “Bill” Haeberle, the creator of one of the nation’s first collegiate entrepreneurship programs and emeritus professor of management and entrepreneurship at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business, died at his Bloomington home on Oct. 26 at the age of 95.
Over a career spanning nearly six decades, Haeberle left an enduring impact not only on the Kelley School but also on Indiana’s entrepreneurial culture, working with many who started new enterprises. He also advised numerous top executives on how to they could spark a more entrepreneurial spirit at larger firms.

Haeberle’s contributions to executive education led to its emergence as part of the mission at Kelley and other business schools around the country. He taught at the Kelley School from 1946 until his retirement in 1984 and remained active as an emeritus faculty member into the next decade.

“Bill Haeberle’s forward-thinking mindset was the foundation of the Kelley School’s entrepreneurship and executive education programs, but it also contributed greatly to Kelley’s tradition of a culture of innovation across all programs,” said Idalene “Idie” Kesner, Kelley School dean and the Frank P. Popoff Chair of Strategic Management. “He challenged norms and inspired his colleagues and students to go beyond their comfort zones, firm in his belief that complacency and risk aversion were obstacles to personal excellence.”

Donald F. Kuratko, the Jack M. Gill Distinguished Chair of Entrepreneurship and executive director of Kelley’s Johnson Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation, said very few individuals can say they affected an entire state the way Haeberle has. “Bill Haeberle was talking and living entrepreneurship long before anyone else used the word in 1946. His entrepreneurial career spanned over six decades, truly an indelible legacy that established him as the ‘godfather of entrepreneurship’ for the state of Indiana.” (more…)

Since joining the Kelley faculty in 2009, I’ve witnessed firsthand the incredible opportunity that a Kelley education affords. It’s not only the teaching of our world-class faculty and the guidance from the top career services office in the nation – but also the chance to get involved in deep and meaningful ways with dynamic experiences outside the classroom, both locally and globally. At Kelley, you’re not just a student studying business. You are pursuing your purpose, developing your professional identity, and preparing to be a leader in your organization and community.

Whether you’re a senior serving in a club leadership role, a junior about to experience I-Core, a sophomore looking forward to your first experience traveling abroad or a freshman still learning your way around campus, I hope that you will see this new academic year as an opportunity to become even more invested in building our Kelley culture and your future as a Kelley alum. (more…)

Kelley associate professor of finance Eitan Goldman accepts the ECGI 2015 Standard Life Investments Finance Prize for the paper he co-authored with Nandini Gupta and Alexander Borisov.

Two Kelley School of Business professors and a Kelley finance alumnus earned first prize for best finance paper in the European Corporate Governance Institute’s 2015 Working Paper Competition.

The paper, The Corporate Value of (Corrupt) Lobbying, was written by Eitan Goldman, associate professor of finance and FedEx Faculty Fellow; Nandini Gupta, associate professor of finance and Koenig Faculty Fellow; and Alexander Borisov, PhD’12, assistant professor of finance at the University of Cincinnati. It was recently accepted for publication in the Review of Financial Studies.

Eitan Goldman

Nandini Gupta

Winner of the 2015 Standard Life Investments Finance Prize, the paper investigates how shareholders of the largest U.S. companies are affected by corporate lobbying activity.

“We use stock market data to study how stock prices of firms that lobby respond to events which decrease the ability of firms to lobby in the future,” Goldman says. “Our first main finding is that we are able to quantify the corporate value of lobbying. For example, we find that a $100,000 additional lobbying expenditure is associated with an additional shareholder value of about $1.2 million. The second main finding of the paper is to show that part of the corporate value of lobbying can be attributed to potentially unethical arrangements between firms and policymakers.”

The trio worked on the paper for several years. Receiving the award recognized the team’s time, effort and ideas, Goldman says.

“It’s gratifying to see that other leading academics and practitioners interested in corporate governance issues view the paper as important.”

Read The Corporate Value of (Corrupt) Lobbying now.

By Paul Binder
Associate Director, Graduate Career Services

I was fascinated by the BBC News China report:  “Can technology identify China’s top graduates?”

It covers what I consider another technological step eclipsing the traditional recruiting process. Key recruiting drivers have been to predict career success and Return on Investment (ROI) at a hiring firm.

Traditionally, as corporations were burdened by an increasing number of applications, resumes, and cover letters, steps were taken to make that process more efficient, even though optimal results could suffer.

An example was to limit the number of schools considered, regardless of potential better talent at other schools, for reasons like company executives attended those schools.

Then the applications, resumes, and cover letters were ranked and rationalized by Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) essentially based on key words.

Common screens align position descriptions with skills and accomplishments, even though significant qualifications may be overlooked.

Now the actual interview is being potentially diminished in importance. “Big data” technology has been ratcheted up to analyze questions submitted online to determine behavioral and cultural fits with a firm. Advocates of this next stage in recruiting cite benefits including better candidates who would not have historically surfaced.

This probably means that candidates need to be more thoughtful and thorough in communicating their skills, interests, and values. It probably also means that in-person networking has never been more important.

Should candidates be exclusively screened by a computer? Should recruiting be a definite two-way process? Should I consider myself fortunate that I am retired?