In today’s interconnected professional world, employees often have affiliations outside their primary workplace. This phenomenon can be harmless—or even beneficial—until two employees find themselves representing rival entities. The article “When Colleagues Compete Outside the Firm” by Thorsten Grohsjean of Bocconi University’s Department of Management and Technology, Henning Piezunka of the Wharton School, and Maren Mickeler of ESSEC Business School published in the Strategic Management Journal offers fascinating insights into this dynamic by examining an unusual case: professional soccer players who become rivals on national teams while playing as club teammates.

The study’s focus is a critical yet understudied setting: when coworkers who typically collaborate within an organization engage in competition outside of it. Using data from the 2018 FIFA World Cup and top European soccer leagues, the researchers observed that teammates who competed against each other on opposing national teams subsequently reduced collaboration within their shared clubs, as evidenced by a significant decrease in passes exchanged during club games.

As Thorsten Grohsjean notes, “The interplay between extra-organizational affiliations and internal collaboration is complex, yet our findings demonstrate a measurable effect: after facing each other as competitors, teammates exhibited a notable reluctance to collaborate at club level.”

New research reveals public discreditation is the most common tactic used across all three sectors to intimidate researchers

Researchers Eben Lazarus and Ned Augenblick from UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business and Michael Thaler of University College London conducted three experiments and analyzed millions of betting transactions and prices on options contracts. They found that people consistently overreact to weak information and underreact to strong information.

Climate change is the single biggest threat to the global environment and socio-economic development – demanding an urgent transformation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. 

Despite a heavy infusion of public and private support during the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries in Oregon reported that housing and food insecurity shot up during the onset of the pandemic in March of 2020 — and their basic needs remained in doubt through at least the end of the following year. The survey data were reported in a study led by Oregon Health & Science University and published today in the Annals of Family Medicine.

About The Study: This study estimates that approximately one-third of U.S. adults without diabetes who were eligible for weight loss treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GLP-1/GIP) were excluded from clinical trials supporting these medications’ safety and effectiveness. Until there is evidence from high-quality postmarketing studies, the FDA should consider updating labeling to advise caution on generalizing the safety and effectiveness of GLP-1 and GLP-1/GIP to populations excluded from pivotal trials.