Brain for Business

In the minds of many, entrepreneurship is an inherently capitalist activity – an entrepreneur starts a business and, all going well, it grows and they make money. Yet how does this explain the concept of “social entrepreneurship” and all that it entails? To explore this further it is a pleasure to welcome Professor Sheila Cannon to the Brain for Business podcast.About our guest…Sheila Cannon is Associate Professor in Social Innovation at Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin. She conducts research on and teaches about social enterprises, nonprofits, and civil society organisations. Her research contributes to knowledge on how organisations influence and respond to socio-cultural change. So far, she has studied contexts including peacebuilding, LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, digital disruption, just transition, rural development, and nature based enterprises.You can find out more about Sheila and her research at this page:https://www.tcd.ie/business/people/faculty-professors/cannonsh/More information on some of the organisations discussed in the podcast is available on their websites:https://moyeecoffee.ie/https://food.cloud/https://shuttleknit.ie/

When it comes to innovation, decision making and other organisational processes, managing idea selection and maximising the outcomes in this selection process is critical, affecting both organisational performance and employee morale. So how do organisations select ideas? And how might they do this differently?To explore this in more detail I am delighted to speak to Professor Dmitry Sharapov of Imperial College London.About our guest…Dmitry Sharapov is Associate Professor of Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Strategy, and MRes/PhD Director for the Management & Entrepreneurship department.Dmitry's research interests lie at the intersections of the literatures on competitive strategy, innovation management, and decision-making under uncertainty. His research, which has been published in journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Strategic Management Journal, and Research Policy, aims to improve our understanding of (1) the antecedents, processes, and consequences of organizations imitating one another, (2) the inventive process and how organizations select which novel ideas to support, and (3) strategy in business ecosystems. Empirical settings for exploring these questions include large multinational technology companies, startup accelerators, the US movie industry, and the America's Cup World Series sailing competition.The article discussed in the interview – Selection Regimes and Selection Errors – is available open access here: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/orsc.2023.17482

A recent paper, co-authored by our guest today, Professor Kristie Neff, addresses the question of how social class origin influences entrepreneurial performance most particularly in terms of individual-level risk-taking, and under what social network conditions the relationship between social class origin and entrepreneurial performance is most pronounced.About our guest…Kristie Neff is an Assistant Professor in the Ivy College of Business (Department of Management & Entrepreneurship) at Iowa State University. At a broad level, Kristie’s research centers on the role of organizations in addressing pressing societal issues. Her main research investigates inclusive work, with a focus on social class within and around organizations. She is especially interested in the interpersonal interactions and organizational policies and processes that facilitate mobility.  In 2025, Kristie received the Southern Management Association (SMA) Ascendant Scholar Award for early career academics.You can find out more about Kristie and her work here:https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristieneff/https://www.kristiemoergen.com/The paper discussed in the interview - Founders’ Social Class Origin, Risk-Taking, and Venture Performance: A Bourdieusian Lens - is available here: https://midus.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/3093.pdf

In a 2022 paper published in Science Advances, our guest today along with co-authors argued that “Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies.”So what does this mean? And what are the implications for both science and society?To discuss this I am joined by Professor Nick Light of the Lundquist College of Business at the University of Oregon.About our guest…In his research, Nick applies what marketers and psychologists have learned about consumer knowledge, preferences, and risk perceptions to address problems relating to the public’s understanding of science. Nick also studies consumers’ perceptions of the simplicity or complexity of brands, objects, and phenomena, and the downstream consequences of those perceptions.Prior to joining academia, Nick worked for about 8 years as a marketing manager and strategist for several Fortune 500 brands in New York City and interned at the United Nations.Nick’s website with more information on his research can be accessed here: www.nicklightresearch.comThe paper discussed in the article - Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues - is open access and available here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038More information on University of Oregon Center for Science Communication Research can be found here: https://scr.uoregon.edu/

When people set up their own business or go it alone, it makes sense for to want to establish their own identity, yet sometimes that might come at a cost… what if your identity is so distinctive that potential customers or clients don’t understand what you do or why you are so special?To explore the question of “optimal distinctiveness” in the context of strategic positioning I am delighted to be joined today by Professor Daphne Demetry.About our guest...Daphne Demetry is an Associate Professor of Strategy & Organization and Bensadoun Faculty Scholar in the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill UniversityAs an organizational theorist and economic sociologist, Daphne uses primarily ethnographic and qualitative methods to explore questions of how entrepreneurs and organizations create and negotiate meaning as they interact with their audiences. She has explored these questions predominately in the craft and creative fields and especially the culinary industry, e.g., underground and pop-up restaurants, gourmet food trucks, and fine dining establishments.You can find out more about Daphne’s research here: https://www.mcgill.ca/desautels/daphne-demetryThe article discussed in the interview - Cutting the apron strings: Establishing optimal distinctiveness from mentors in creative industries by Daphne Demetry and Rachel Doern - can be accessed here (open access): https://sms.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smj.70003

A 2020 article by the polling firm, Gallup, argued that:“The micromanager has become a bit of a boogeyman in the business world. Nobody wants to work for one. Few managers want to be one. Everyone has a horror story about one.” To explore the topic of micromanagement and its implications I am delighted to be joined by Dr Catherine Deen.About our guest…Catherine Deen is a Senior Lecturer in HR and Organisation Behaviour at the School of Business, University of New South Wales Canberra. As an organisational behaviour researcher, Catherine has a growing reputation for excellent research in the areas of work-related intimate partner aggression, leadership, and the vocational experiences of vulnerable workers. Prior to entering academia, Catherine amassed more than 20 years of industry experience in educational administration, teaching, and research. Since formally entering academia in 2018, Catherine’s research has been published in a range of top management journals.To find out more information about Catherine and her research take a look at the following links:www.catherinedeen.comhttps://lead.fiu.edu/news/2024/my-way-or-the-highway.html

“Collective stupidity is fairly common in organisations. Firms full of very smart individuals who act in reckless ways that destroy them. Governments and nations that engage in acts of self-harm, descending into economic decline or civil war. Armies that repeat failed tactics. It’s easy to see collective stupidity as something others slip into because of their own idiocy or moral failings. But this perspective misses much. We are all party to such follies.”So wrote our guest today, Professor Sir Geoff Mulgan, in a recent paper on the focus of our conversation: Collective Stupidity and its implications for individuals, organisations and society.About our guestSir Geoff Mulgan CBE is Professor of Collective Intelligence, Public Policy and Social Innovation at University College London (UCL). Prior to that he was Chief Executive of Nesta, the UK’s innovation foundation, between 2011 and the end of 2019. From 1997 to 2004 Geoff had roles in the UK government including director of the Government’s Strategy Unit and head of policy in the Prime Minister’s office. From 2004 to 2011 he was the first Chief Executive of The Young Foundation. He was the first director of the think-tank Demos; and has been a reporter on BBC TV and radioThe article discussed in the interview is open access and is available here:Mulgan, G. (2025). A Theory of Collective Stupidity in Organisations–and Possible Remedies. Organization Studies, 46(9), 1331-1335.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/01708406251349313

A forthcoming article by our guests today – appropriately titled “Rethinking Stardom" - argues that: Star performers are increasingly capturing the attention of both researchers and practitioners alike. However, studies on these uber-performers often employ disparate definitions, theoretical foundations and assumptions, and methods and analyses, which creates significant tension and confusion in the comparison of findings and the formation of a clear understanding of what star performance truly entails and its impact on individuals, teams, and organizations. To better explore the concept of star performers in organisations I am delighted to be joined by the two authors of this paper: Professor Ernest O’Boyle, Dale Coleman Chair of Management and Professor at Indiana University - Kelley School of Business, and Martin Gotz, Senior Teaching and Research Assistant in the Department of Psychology at the University of Zurich in Switzerland.The article discussed in the interview is available here: O'Boyle, E. H., & Götz, M. (2025). Rethinking stardom: A relativistic approach to studying the absolute best performers. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 13.Rethinking Stardom: A Relativistic Approach to Studying the Absolute Best Performers | Annual Reviews

According to Forbes magazine, in 2020 alone global spend on corporate training programmes, often focused on leadership development, exceeded $350 billion. Yet how effective, if at all, are these programmes? And are they perhaps just a massive waste of time and money? To dig deep into the question of why leadership development might be failing us I am delighted to be joined on the podcast by Professor Moran Anisman-Razin.About our guest…Dr. Moran Anisman-Razin, is an Associate Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology in the Department of Work and Employment Studies at the Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick. She is also a Visiting Research Scholar at the Behavioral Science and Policy Center, Social Science Research Institute at Duke University, USA and Faculty Affiliate at the Center for Innovative Leadership, Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins university. Through her work, Moran explores questions of leadership in organizations and is particularly interested in examining leaders' perspectives and identities as shaping behavior, leader development, and exploring ways to make leadership development programs more evidence-based and rigorous.The MIT Sloan Management Review article discussed in the interview - Leadership Development Is Failing Us. Here’s How to Fix It - is available here: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/leadership-development-is-failing-us-heres-how-to-fix-it/A key article also referenced in the interview - Uncomfortable but Developmental: How Mindfulness Moderates the Impact of Negative Emotions on Learning - https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amle.2023.0434