Early-Career Communication Part 1: Expressing Dissent

Posted on January 21, 2016 by Kelley School

How can you express dissent without sounding like a troublemaker? The key is to respectfully and intelligently highlight your thoughts and opinions without letting your emotions get in the way. Here are several strategies you can utilize. Each strategy works best in a particular scenario. So think through the situation you find yourself in and choose the option that is best.

Option 1 – Ask questions.

You can pose questions for the team to consider. Questions like – “Did anyone consider how the new pricing system would impact our smaller customers?” or “What about thinking through the likelihood that Legal will agree to those revised contract terms?” This way you are not seen as the one trying to kill an idea, instead, you are viewed as someone who is thinking two steps ahead of everyone else. When dissent is packaged this way, you are actually seen as being organizationally savvy enough to foresee potential roadblocks. Your comments may be construed as a “head’s up” versus negativity.

Option 2 – Highlight contra-indicative information.

Stating key facts is an alternative for highlighting a disagreement without fully owning it. A statement such as “Decreasing the timeline by 3 weeks will cause us to be 25% over budget.” A well-documented fact cannot be argued. In this situation, you are not seen as rabble-rousing, instead, you’ll be perceived as knowledgeable and informed. This is best for those times when you’re new to the team or you work in a highly consensus-building organization.

Options 1 and 2 are appropriate for when you want to de-personalize your dissent and you don’t want to be known as an “agitator”. These strategies are most effective when you don’t yet have an established workplace brand or you don’t want to branded as the company instigator.

Now let’s Consider those times when you’re in a team meeting, an idea gets thrown out that generates a lot of excitement and energy. However, you for whatever reason are not in agreement. What can you do? Let’s continue with our countdown of options. (more…)

Real Estate Billionaire and Philanthropist Conrad T. Prebys Makes $20 Million Gift to IU and Kelley School

Posted on October 1, 2015 by Kelley School

Philanthropist Conrad T. Prebys, BS’55, has made a $20 million gift to benefit the Kelley School of Business and to fund a new university amphitheater.

From modest beginnings in a South Bend working class neighborhood, Conrad T. Prebys came to IU a determined young man. Within a few years after graduation, he relocated to San Diego with only $500, no car and no home. He worked hard and eventually distinguished his company, Progress Construction and Management, as a developer of affordable, middle-class apartments. Mr. Prebys put his heart and soul into his real estate ventures over the next 50 years and today he is one of the wealthiest men in America — and also one of the most generous.

As one of the 30 most generous people in America, Prebys’ generosity has including many medical research, educational and arts organizations including the Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, The Old Globe Theater, the Zoological Society of San Diego, the San Diego Museum of Art, Scripps Mercy Hospital and San Diego State University. Many people also know his name as a supporter of PBS and the Masterpiece Trust, which co-produces “Downtown Abbey.”

His investment in IU will significantly impact Kelley students, faculty, alumni, visitors and the companies who hire our graduates. Read more about Mr. Prebys’ gift to Indiana University and how the funds will be used.

Kelley Professors Win Finance Paper Prize

Posted on July 10, 2015 by Kelley School

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.

Recruiting Embraces Computer Dating Concepts

Posted on April 29, 2015 by Kelley School

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?

Paul Binder is the Associate Director of Graduate Career Services at the Kelley School of Business. Paul and his team meet and coach hundreds of students, alumni, and corporate partners on tried and true recruiting methods, interviewing tactics, and career management strategies, while staying in tune to how these areas are changing and evolving. Email Paul at pjbinder@indiana.edu.

Social media