Violent traumatic events — such as mass shootings and acts of domestic terrorism — have become increasingly common in the United States. Yet, despite their growing prevalence, little research has examined how these events shape the decisions made within organizations.

A new study from the 91̽��, in the Academy of Management Journal, reveals that traumatic events can significantly dampen organizational risk-taking. The findings challenge the long-standing view that decision-makers — such as CEOs, executives and team leaders — are largely rational, emotionless actors. The research instead shows that emotional experiences in the broader community can spill over into the workplace and reshape strategic choices.

“People bring their whole selves to work,” said , co-author and professor of management in the 91̽��Foster School of Business. “Whatever emotional state that’s being influenced by things happening in their community eventually spills over and bleeds into how organizations conduct themselves.”

The research team found that violent traumatic events in local communities make decision-makers less focused on pursuing lofty objectives. As a result, organizations become less likely to take risky actions to close�� performance gaps or achieve ambitious goals.

To reach these conclusions, the researchers combined two complementary methods: an observational field study and two controlled experiments. The field study analyzed nearly 40,000 fourth-down decisions made by NFL teams between 2008 and 2019 and combined that data with information on local mass shootings and other violent events.

that when NFL teams fall behind in games, they tend to take more risks — for example, attempting a fourth-down conversion rather than punting or trying for a field goal. In this study, teams that were underperforming were about three times more likely to attempt a conversion. However, following a traumatic event nearby, those same teams were 10% less likely to take that risk.

“I think it is a sadness effect,” Gupta said. “When people are sad, they can’t focus on pursuing their ambitious goals. They can still continue to avoid negative circumstances, but the pursuit of ambitious goals is driven by a strong positive drive. These traumatic events impair people’s ability to pursue those goals.”

Researchers also found that when the chief decision maker — the coach, in this case — had spent more time embedded in the community, the event’s impact on risk-taking behavior increased. Distance also mattered: The closer to an organization the event occurred, the stronger the impact.

“It was striking that distance still matters,” Gupta said. “You think it wouldn’t matter with the way information spreads now, but even two miles versus 20 miles still really matters. When it’s that close, you can imagine yourself or your kids being the target. Rationally, it shouldn’t matter, but psychologically, it clearly does.”

The two controlled experiments verified the mechanism behind the behavior changes. In each experiment, one group of participants read a Wikipedia article about a mass shooting while the other group read about a more neutral event — either a music festival or an accounting conference.

Participants then competed in a three-round game for bonus pay. In line with the field study, those exposed to the traumatic narrative took fewer risks in later rounds and reported a decreased focus on winning, suggesting that sadness diminished their competitive drive.

By demonstrating that emotionally charged events in the broader social environment can alter organizational risk-taking, the study highlights the deep interconnectivity between societal trauma and economic decision-making. It suggests that collective emotional states — such as sadness, anxiety or fear — may ripple through firms, industries and local economies, quietly seeping into strategic behaviors.

“Emotional states are dynamic, fleeting, and hard to study,” Gupta said. “How they influence important organizational decisions is still an underexplored area. Much of individual-level psychology hasn’t yet made its way into research on strategic decision-making. Our findings, we hope, will spark a broader rethinking of how emotion and environment jointly shape organizational behavior.”

Other co-authors were of Vienna University of Economics and Business and of the University of Vienna.

For more information, contact Gupta at abhinavg@uw.edu.

As public universities across the U.S. face increasing scrutiny over issues such as diversity initiatives and tenure protections, new research from the 91̽�� offers timely lessons on how universities can navigate politically charged issues without abandoning their core commitments.

The study, recently published in , examines how public universities decided whether to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits in the early 1990s and 2000s. Researchers found that universities — especially those in conservative states — often strategically adjusted not just whether and when they adopted inclusive policies, but also how they justified those decisions.

“When universities face powerful stakeholders who oppose their values, how they frame their decisions can be as important as the decisions themselves,” said , co-author and professor of management in the 91̽��Foster School of Business.

91̽��News spoke with Gupta about what universities can learn from this earlier period of cultural and political tension.

Can you tell me about the inspiration for this research?

AG: This project began when I was a doctoral student at The Pennsylvania State University, where my co-authors and I were interested in understanding how institutional change unfolds under ideological pressure. We were especially drawn to the LGBTQ+ rights movement, which has been one of the most successful in recent U.S. history — not only in shifting cultural values, but also in driving tangible changes in workplace policy and practice.

Among those changes, the adoption of same-sex domestic partner benefits by universities stood out as a concrete, measurable outcome with real resource implications. It offered us a focused way to examine how inclusive policies are implemented within institutions that must navigate competing political and economic demands.

We weren’t just curious about whether universities adopted these benefits — we wanted to understand how they managed the politics of those decisions, especially in states where conservative legislatures controlled university budgets. This was an opportunity to study how organizations pursue values-based change pragmatically, often advancing their commitments in ways that are sensitive to the views of key stakeholders.

Over time, we built a comprehensive dataset of top public universities, tracking the progression of this policy between 1990 and 2013. Modeling that process was painstaking, but it allowed us to identify patterns in how universities adopted and framed these decisions — strategically aligning with trusted actors in their environments, such as major local employers, and adjusting their rhetoric to reduce backlash.

Although history doesn’t repeat itself exactly, the same underlying dynamics often resurface. This case offers a narrow but revealing window into how change happens — not through confrontation alone, but through patient, careful work that gradually builds consensus. For anyone interested in advancing equity in complex institutional settings, there are valuable lessons in how the LGBTQ+ movement translated advocacy into durable, systemic shifts.

What patterns did you notice in universities’ decision making?

AG: One of the most striking dynamics we observed was in states where public universities relied heavily on funding from conservative legislatures. In these contexts, university administrators were often deeply concerned about potential backlash. They feared that allocating funds to support same-sex domestic partner benefits could be seen as ideologically out of step with legislative priorities.

We analyzed adoption patterns across major public universities — research powerhouses and flagship institutions throughout the U.S. — and found a clear and systematic pattern. Universities in more progressive states were often early adopters of these benefits, with some acting as early as 1991. In contrast, their peers in more conservative states often waited nearly a decade longer to adopt the same policies.

But what was particularly telling was how these later adopters framed their decisions. Many universities in red states did not lead with social justice arguments. Instead, they took a “business case” approach, aligning their decisions with market-based rationales — emphasizing competitiveness, talent recruitment and employee retention. These institutions typically adopted the policy only after major local employers had done so, effectively using the private sector as cover. This allowed them to present the decision as a practical response to labor market trends rather than an ideologically driven move.

This pattern led us to develop a broader theoretical insight: when organizations anticipate ideological resistance from key stakeholders, they often look to “exemplar organizations” — entities already seen as legitimate by those stakeholders. By emulating the behavior of these exemplars and adopting rhetoric that reflects stakeholder values, they can diffuse opposition and build support without abandoning their goals.

In contrast, universities in more liberal states often cited peer institutions and framed their decisions more explicitly around fairness and inclusion. What this shows is that organizations don’t simply conform or resist in the face of ideological tension — they adapt. They make strategic choices about when and how to act, often tailoring their message and reference points to gain legitimacy in diverse political and cultural environments.

What lessons can universities take from this case study, particularly in the current environment?

AG: We’re living through a time of heightened scrutiny and political tension, and universities increasingly find themselves at the center of it. In many ways, higher education has long enjoyed a degree of autonomy — but that autonomy rests on relationships with a broad set of external stakeholders whose values may not always align with those of university leadership, faculty or students.

This moment raises a fundamental question: What should universities do when their internal priorities come into conflict with the beliefs or expectations of those who hold influence over their resources — such as policymakers, donors or community leaders? Some might argue that institutions should stay true to their values no matter the cost. But our research suggests that universities benefit more when they strategically engage their environment, not ignore it.

This doesn’t mean compromising principles. It means understanding the value systems of key stakeholders and learning to speak in ways that resonate. For example, when universities face resistance to inclusive policies, it can be effective to frame those decisions around economic competitiveness, workforce needs or community relevance — themes that often carry bipartisan appeal. The goal is not to dilute the message, but to translate it into language that expands support rather than provokes opposition.

In our research, we also emphasize the value of “exemplar organizations” — trusted institutions that skeptical stakeholders already view as legitimate. When a university can point to respected peers or private-sector leaders who have adopted a similar course of action, it lowers the perceived risk of following suit and frames the decision as pragmatic rather than ideological.

At their best, universities are extraordinary institutions. They create scientific breakthroughs, train healthcare professionals and business leaders, support local economies and open doors for the next generation. Their work benefits people across political, cultural and socioeconomic divides. To continue delivering that value, especially in contentious times, universities need to build broad-based coalitions — not by avoiding disagreement, but by finding common ground wherever possible.

Other co-authors were Chad Murphy of Oregon State University and Forrest Briscoe of Cornell University.

For more information, contact Gupta at abhinavg@uw.edu.

Narcissism is a prominent trait among top executives, and most people have seen the evidence in their workplaces.

These individuals believe they have superior confidence, intelligence and judgment, and will pursue any opportunity to reinforce those inflated self-views and gain admiration. According to new research from the 91̽��, narcissism can also cause knowledge barriers within organizations.

When different units in the same company share information, it boosts performance and creates a competitive advantage. Narcissists hinder this knowledge transfer due to a sense of superiority that leads them to overestimate the value of internal knowledge and underestimate the value of external knowledge.

“Many big companies are what one would describe as multi-business firms, an organizational form where you have a corporate parent and subsidiary units,” said co-author , associate professor of management in the 91̽��Foster School of Business. “The financial logic for why these firms exist is so that knowledge and skills that reside in one unit can be used in another unit.”

But units don’t work with each other as much as companies would like, Gupta said. The study, , revealed that certain personality traits of executives — specifically narcissism — impede the flow of information.

“Narcissism affects people’s desire to be distinctive,” Gupta said. “It’s correlated by people wanting glory for themselves. We hypothesized that business-unit heads that have those traits would be the ones to say, ‘We don’t want to work with you. We have sufficient skills and knowledge and abilities that we will work independently.’ That was very strongly borne out based on our research design.”

The authors surveyed business units of a headhunting company in China that helps organizations recruit talent and search for technical personnel. These units must share knowledge about building talent pools, identifying skills and persuading prospects to accept offers.

Researchers asked unit heads to rate, among other factors, their own narcissistic traits, the environmental complexity of the local market and perceived competition with other units. They then asked deputies to rate the level of knowledge imported from other units.

Narcissism was measured using the self-report Narcissistic Personality Inventory 16-item scale, which presents pairs of statements and asks individuals to select the one that best describes them. One pair consisted of “I like to be the center of attention” and “I prefer to blend in with the crowd.”

The study found that unit-head narcissism can prevent knowledge sharing. That tendency diminished in fast-changing or complex environments because narcissists had an excuse to pursue external ideas. But when businesses have high inter-unit competition, narcissists are more tempted to distinguish themselves from other units.

The research has multiple implications for companies, Gupta said. For example, when filling roles that require knowledge sharing, managers might watch for signs of narcissistic personality traits. Companies could also design an organization and reward structure that encourages cooperation among current personnel.

“There are two views of how multi-business firms create value,” Gupta said. “One perspective is you want to run an organization like an internal market. All the units are actively competing for resources from the corporate headquarters, and that competition is what enables superior performance.

“This research kind of goes against the grain of that. If you create the perception of competition inside an organization, then that will have some downstream effects. You will be essentially foregoing some essential knowledge-sharing activities.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

The other co-authors were of Remin University of China, of Peking University, of Shangdong University and of Tsinghua University.��

For more information, contact Gupta at abhinavg@uw.edu.

How can businesses improve employee well-being without sacrificing profits?

That will be the topic of conversation Friday evening as faculty experts from the 91̽�� Foster School of Business share their perspectives and research in a series of short talks:

The speakers are , associate professor of management; , assistant professor of management and organization; , professor of marketing; , associate professor of management; and , the inaugural Dean’s Impact Scholar at the Foster School and vice president and global head of inclusion, diversity, equity and action at Lululemon.

Gupta studies topics related to business, politics and society. He will speak on the growing phenomenon of employee activism. Employees are increasingly speaking out against corporate employers for what they see as irresponsible behaviors, Gupta said, often risking their careers and livelihoods.

“I will describe the macro trends that have fueled the rise of employee activism, and the factors that explain why some activists are more successful than others,” Gupta said. “The goal is to share ideas that can unlock the full potential of employee activism to enhance corporate citizenship and social welfare.”

Hafenbrack’s research centers around psychological processes that affect the workplace. He will speak on the benefits and drawbacks of meditation as a tool in the workplace, including how a small amount of meditation in specific situations can often change a person’s life for the better — but sometimes for the worse.

“You just need to know the difference between when it is helpful and when it isn’t,” Hafenbrack said. “I will also explain why celebrities like Arianna Huffington, Phil Jackson and Deepak Chopra don’t like my research on meditation.”

Schlosser’s talk will highlight how social media can influence the way consumers present themselves. Because computer-mediated communication allows speakers to remain anonymous and less aware of audience reactions, it would seem to allow people to be their true selves. But that hasn’t been the case, Schlosser said.

“In the over 25 years since social media sites were introduced, people continue to communicate information that seems acceptable and held by the majority,” said Schlosser, who studies computer-mediated communication and internet marketing. “I’ll also discuss implications for consumer well-being and the ‘spiral of silence.’”

Fehr, whose research focuses on building positive relationships at work, will discuss how a culture of gratitude is often missing from organizations, despite research that suggests gratitude can have a lasting effect on well-being, strength of relationships and success at work. His talk will examine the “gratitude gap” — ��the difference in the amount of gratitude people hope for at work and what actually transpires.

“My work focuses on helping employees build high-quality connections with each other,” Fehr said. “Especially in a time of growing social division and virtual work, I argue that organizations must help employees forge high-quality relationships with each other if they are to succeed.”

Jones, who has spent more than 20 years working with corporations on domestic and international matters of DEI, will talk about navigating the corporate DEI space as well as approaches organizations can take to create healthy, inclusive and equitable workplaces for individuals and society.