 |
|
|
|||||
When companies advertise job openings, they often use buzzwords like ambitious and self-reliant to describe their ideal candidate. These traits sound appealingwhat hiring manager wouldnt want a driven employee? But theres a catch. In my latest study, published in the journal Management Science with coauthors Scott Jackson and Nick Seybert, I found that these terms may attract job applicants with more narcissistic tendencies. As behavioral researchers in accounting, we are interested in executives who bend the rules. We decided to study job postings after noticing that the language used to describe an ideal candidate often included traits linked to narcissism. For example, narcissists tend to see themselves as highly creative and persuasive. Prior research also shows that narcissistic employees are more innovative and willing to take risks to get the success and admiration they crave, even if it means bending the rules. Based on these observations, we compiled two sets of terms commonly used in job postings. We call the two sets rule-follower and rule-bender language. Some examples of rule-bender language include develops creative and innovative solutions to problems, communicates in a tactical and persuasive manner and thinks outside the box. In contrast, the rule-follower language includes terms like relies on time-tested solutions to problems, communicates in a straightforward and accurate manner and thinks methodically. Through a series of experiments, we found that rule-bender language attracts individuals with higher levels of narcissism for accounting-specific jobs, as well as other industries. To measure narcissism, we used a personality assessment that asks people to choose whether they identify more with more narcissistic statements like, I always know what I am doing, or less narcissistic statements like Sometimes I am not sure of what I am doing. We also found that recruiters are more likely to use rule-bender terms when hiring for highly innovative, high-growth companies. For accounting positions, recruiters are more likely to use such terms when aggressive financial reporting could benefit the firm. Why it matters Companies write job postings carefully in hopes of attracting the ideal candidate. However, they may unknowingly attract and select narcissistic candidates whose goals and ethics might not align with a companys values or long-term success. Research shows that narcissistic employees are more likely to behave unethically, potentially leading to legal consequences. While narcissistic traits can lead to negative outcomes, we arent saying that companies should avoid attracting narcissistic applicants altogether. Consider a company hiring a salesperson. A firm can benefit from a salesperson who is persuasive, who thinks outside the box and who is results-oriented. In contrast, a company hiring an accountant or compliance officer would likely benefit from someone who thinks methodically and communicates in a straightforward and accurate manner. Bending the rules is of particular concern in accounting. A significant amount of research examines how accounting managers sometimes bend rules or massage the numbers to achieve earnings targets. This earnings management can misrepresent the companys true financial position. In fact, my coauthor Nick Seybert is currently working on a paper whose data suggests rule-bender language in accounting job postings predicts rule-bending in financial reporting. Our current findings shed light on the importance of carefully crafting job posting language. Recruiting professionals may instinctively use rule-bender language to try to attract someone who seems like a good fit. If companies are concerned about hiring narcissists, they may want to clearly communicate their ethical values and needs while crafting a job posting, or avoid rule-bender language entirely. What still isnt known While we find that professional recruiters are using language that attracts narcissists, it is unclear whether this is intentional. Additionally, we are unsure what really drives rule-bending in a company. Rule-bending could happen due to attracting and hiring more narcissistic candidates, or it could be because of a companys cultureor a combination of both. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Jonathan Gay is an assistant professor of accountancy at the University of Mississippi. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
There has been lots of chatter in the past few years about the benefits of a shorter workweek, as some companies have tested out four-day work schedules and other variations on the traditional workweek. Back in 2021, on the heels of the pandemic, California Congressman Mark Takano even introduced a bill to enshrine a 32-hour workweekthough it never garnered enough bipartisan support to progress further. In surveys, a majority of workers have expressed interest in a four-day or 32-hour workweek (with no reduction in pay, of course). Even as some leaders increasingly see the evolution of the workweek as an inevitability, were still a long way from ushering in sweeping changes across the workforce. But a recent report revealed that many employees may already be leaning into a shorter workdayor at least a more flexible workweek. Corporate workers in the U.S. are now clocking out at 4:39 p.m. on average, according to data from the workforce analytics platform ActivTrak. The report found that while employees still log on by 8 a.m., they seem to be working less on average. The average length of the workday is now eight hours and 44 minutes, a decrease of more than 40 minutes from two years ago. However, ActivTrak’s findings also reveal a broader shift in how we work today: More people are logging hours over the weekend, especially at larger companies; and hybrid employees seem to have longer workdays, which could mean they’re wrapping up their work after hours. Many employees, especially caregivers, have said hybrid work enables greater flexibility in their workdays and allows them to set their own schedule. Perhaps the solution to our frustrations with rigid work schedules is a shorter, more flexible workdaynot necessarily a truncated workweek. The challenges of a four-day workweek At tech companies like Bolt and Kickstarter, the shift to a four-day workweek has been popular with employees and a selling point for prospective talent. Still, while a four-day workweek can help alleviate certain workplace challenges, it isn’t a viable option in every job or industry. There are some types of businesses that simply cannot shut down for a full day each week. Also, this type of restructuring may have little benefit for shift workers with long hours. Even among knowledge workers, there’s a risk that cutting a full day would simply result in employees scrambling to cram their work into a shorter week. “Simply shortening the number of days we work wont solve our problem,” wrote Mathilde Collin, CEO of the customer communication platform Front. “In fact, it might even increase stress and burnout: Squeezing more meetings into a shorter number of days means theres even less time to focus and get creative, thoughtful work done.” Why flexible workdays could help Reframing this shift as a shorter workweek, whether that means four full days of work or five truncated workdays, could be a more effective approach. After all, much of the resistance to return-to-office mandates has stemmed from employees wanting to preserve the flexibility they had when remote and hybrid work was the norm. Employees are often just looking for more flexibility in the workday rather than fewer working hours, whether they’re trying to accommodate doctors’ appointments or school pickupsor simply want to take a proper lunch break. That’s why Collin’s company implemented flexible Fridays. “The team felt relief to have a day where they could work if needed, yet nothing was expected of them,” she wrote. “If you need focused time, youve always got it. And if you want to spend time with your kids or take a bike ride or go to a dentist appointment, you can do that guilt-free.” There’s also plenty of research that indicates workers are not necessarily more productive simply because they work longer hours. Adopting a shorter workday or workweek requires a shift in mindset from companies and employees alike, to ensure that they measure output rather than hours logged; it could also mean cutting back on superfluous meetings to give employees time back. And for companies that view a four-day workweek as a drastic measure, giving employees some flexibility to set their own working hours might actually be a better compromiseand a more realistic step in the right direction.
Category:
E-Commerce
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. Last month, new Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) could get released from government conservatorship if doing so doesnt push up mortgage rates. Right now the priority is tax policyonce we get through that, then we will think about that [ending conservatorship]. The priority for a Fannie and Freddie release, the most important metric that Im looking at is any study or hint that mortgage rates would go up. Anything that is done around a safe and sound release [of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] is going to hinge on the effect of long-term mortgage rates, Bessent said. While some in the Trump administration have alluded to an interest in ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Trump and Bessent also earlier expressed interest in bringing down long-term rates and yields. Bessent suggests that their goal of lowering mortgage rates could take precedence over releasing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from conservatorship. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which support the mortgage industry by buying mortgages from lenders and selling mortgage-backed securities to investors, were placed into conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in September 2008. That was after they suffered massive losses during the housing crash, which threatened the stability of the U.S. financial system. The U.S. Treasury provided a bailout to keep them afloat, and they have remained under government control ever since, despite returning to profitability. While the U.S. Treasury owns the majority of their profits through senior preferred stock agreements, the common and preferred shares that existed before conservatorship were never fully wiped out. Immediately following Trumps November election win, the stock prices of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae both soared and the market started to price in higher odds of conservatorship coming to an end. To better understand what the end of conservatorship for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could mean for the housing market and mortgage rates, ResiClub reached out to Moodys chief economist Mark Zandiwho has published several reports (including in 2017 and 2025) on how the end of conservatorship could impact financial markets. Zandi provided ResiClub with his odds for five scenarios and how each could impact mortgage rates, including whether the government offers an “implicit” or “explicit” guarantee of Fannie and Freddie. An “explicit guarantee” means the government formally guarantees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s obligations, ensuring that investors will be repaid no matter what. This reduces risk for investors, leading to lower mortgage rates. An “implicit guarantee” means the government does not commit to backing the GSEs, but markets assume it would intervene to prevent failure. (This was the case before the 2008 financial crisis when investors believed the government would rescue the GSEs if needed.) Since theres no formal guarantee, this scenario can lead to higher borrowing costs because investors demand extra compensation for the uncertainty. 1. Conservatorship status quo remains in place: 65% probability The status quo with the [Government-Sponsored Enterprises] remaining in conservatorship is the most likely scenario,” Zandi tells ResiClub. “This is the most likely scenario as it is consistent with the status quo and current mortgage rates. The housing finance system has worked very well since the GSEs were put into conservatorship in 2008. And the GSEs have been effectively privatized through their credit risk transfers to the private sector. Those advocating for taking the GSEs out of conservatorship need to explain what the benefit of privatization is. 2. Release of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with an “implicit government guarantee”: 20% probability Release of the GSEs as systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) with an implicit government guarantee like that which prevailed prior to the GSEs conservatorship,” says Zandi. “This is going back to the future, and while the GSEs will be better capitalized and with a much smaller and less risky balance sheet than when they failed, global investors will be highly wary of this approach, pushing mortgage rates up 20-40 basis points compared to the status quo for the typical borrower through the business cycle. Given the nightmares this will conjure up, it is a less likely scenario. 3. Full release of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae without an “implicit” or “explicit” government guarantee: 10% probability This would add an estimated 60-90 basis points to 30-year fixed mortgage rates compared to the current status quo for the typical borrower through the business cycle,” Zandi projects. “Without a government guarantee, the Federal Reserve would not be able to buy the GSEs [mortgage-backed securities], and there is the risk that the rating agencies would downgrade the GSEs debt and securities. The GSEs share of the mortgage market would significantly decline, and it would increase for private lenders and the [Federal Housing Administration], resulting in greater taxpayer exposure, as taxpayers bear all the risk in FHA loans. 4. Release of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with an “explicit” government guarantee: 5% probability Release of the GSEs with an explicit government guarantee would result in a small decline in mortgage rates (as much as 25 basis points) compared to the current status quo. But this is not likely as it would require legislation that would be difficult and [nearly] imossible to pass, says Zandi. 5. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fully chartered as government corporations: 0% probability [If the] GSEs are chartered as government corporations (much like Fannie pre-1968) with an explicit government guarantee, [this] would effectively codify the current status quo to get the full faith and credit guarantee of the federal government. This would result in the lowest mortgage rates, but also requires legislation and is not at all likely in a Trump administration, says Zandi. While the Trump administration is interested in releasing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from conservatorship, it is also sensitive to any increase in mortgage rates. Given this concern and the evidence presented by Moodys, it is fair to assume that the administration will proceed with caution over the next year. If conservatorship does end, it is likely to happen later in the Trump administration, once concerns around mortgage rates have been addressed.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||