In the world of academia, the impact of a research paper is often measured by its publication in prestigious journals and the number of citations it receives from fellow scholars.
However, broader measures of influence are emerging, including the number of times research papers are downloaded by non-academic readers: industry leaders, policymakers and curious professionals.
Downloads reflect real-world interest and application, demonstrating the potential for business research to inform practice, shape decisions and spark innovation in the global marketplace.
So, with the help of SSRN, a free online platform that allows users to access and share scholarly research, we have compiled a table showing the most downloaded recent papers authored or co-authored by business school academics. We analyse the subset of papers downloaded by governments, companies and other credible non-academic users, which serve as a proxy for the wider reach and impact of business school research.
Interest rates bite back
Topping our list of downloaded papers is “Monetary tightening and US bank fragility in 2023: mark-to-market losses and uninsured depositor runs?” This study found that the recent rise in interest rates in the US has caused many banks to lose money on their long-term investments, which makes them risky, especially if they have a lot of uninsured deposits. This situation can lead to panic among depositors, as was seen last year with Silicon Valley Bank, where people rushed to withdraw their money because they were worried the bank might fail.
Authors Erica Xuewei Jiang of USC Marshall School of Business, Gregor Matvos of Kellogg School of Management, Tomasz Piskorski of Columbia Business School, and Amit Seru of Stanford concluded that regulatory intervention is critical to prevent widespread bank failures, especially as uninsured depositors tend to withdraw en masse, leading to liquidity crises.
“We were hoping to influence the academic community that was working on issues of financial intermediation and communicate to them how we thought they should think about the current events and also, more broadly, about bank stability,” explains Matvos. “But, then, we also wanted to communicate to policymakers, regulators and the broader public, who would be critical for shaping the response that was to come.”
Not all business school research needs to have a direct impact to be influential in the long run, argues Matvos. “Some work I do is targeted to a narrow set of people who work on the academic frontier, and I hope that the academic frontier eventually filters into the world.
“Because such impact is diffuse and hard to measure, I have to take it on faith that such work will eventually matter in a broad sense. So, there’s something very satisfying when the impact of the work is so direct that you can see it in real time.”
AI at the center of business
The second ranked paper examines artificial intelligence (AI) — specifically: “Navigating the jagged technological frontier: field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality”. It asks whether the technology can help workers do their jobs faster and better, particularly when the tasks are suited to it. However, it concludes that, if the tasks are too complicated for the AI, it can make things worse, causing workers to struggle more and get less done.
Authors Fabrizio Dell’Acqua, Edward McFowland of Harvard Business School, Ethan Mollick of Wharton et al conducted their research in collaboration with Boston Consulting Group, surveying 758 consultants who were assigned to three conditions: no AI access, AI access via GPT-4, or GPT-4 with prompt engineering support.
Results showed that consultants using AI completed 12 per cent more tasks and were 25 per cent faster, producing quality improvements exceeding 40 per cent. Lower-performing consultants benefited the most, increasing their output by 43 per cent, compared with a mere 17 per cent for higher performers. Conversely, for tasks deemed beyond AI’s frontier, those using AI were 19 percentage points less likely to achieve correct solutions.
“We thought companies and organisations integrating AI into their knowledge work would be the primary beneficiaries of our research, so the number of downloads of our paper has been incredibly encouraging,” says Dell’Acqua. “In other work, I’ve developed the concept of ‘falling asleep at the wheel’, where workers become overly reliant on high-performing AI and disengage from critical thinking, mindlessly following recommendations without deliberation.
“Our research can help organisations design human-AI collaboration systems that keep workers actively engaged, leveraging their unique skills while avoiding this pitfall.”
Encouraged, in part, by the response to their paper, the researchers are running another experiment to further explore the dynamics of human-AI collaboration. “We’re only scratching the surface of understanding this monumental revolution,” says Dell’Acqua. “We’re excited to uncover more insights that will help shape the future of work.”
Home is where the heart is
Working remotely is another trend shaping that future. In “Return-to-office mandates”, Yuye Ding and Mark (Shuai) Ma of University of Pittsburgh’s Katz Graduate School of Business discovered that, when companies in the US required employees to return to the office (RTO), it was more about managers wanting to exercise control and blame others for problems than actually improving work or profits. This move made employees less happy and did not help the companies make more money.
Analysing a sample of S&P 500 companies, the study found significant declines in employee job satisfaction following RTO mandates, without corresponding improvements in financial performance or company value. Notably, managers themselves did not profess a strong belief that RTO would increase company performance. Instead, RTO was more likely in companies with poor prior stock performance and under the direction of male and powerful chief executives, suggesting a strategy to scapegoat employees for managerial shortcomings.
The paper has been downloaded more than 23,000 times on SSRN. Ma adds that it has been mentioned in the media more than 100 times and led to the authors being interviewed by US radio network NPR, the Washington Post, Fortune, Forbes and other news outlets around the world. “A lot of the SSRN downloads are from practitioners, such as policy advisers, corporate executives and regular workers who are affected by RTO mandates,” says Ma.
“We believe it’s important for business research to study socially relevant and impactful issues, and provide timely feedback on such issues. It’s very fulfilling for us to see our study’s impact, which also becomes additional motivation for us to continue research on this important topic.”
One way to encourage this kind of research would be more conferences that involve both practitioners and researchers, argues Ma. “That way, researchers can present their findings to help practitioners make their decisions and also learn more about what is the important question that practitioners and real decision makers face,” he says.
“It was through discussions with practitioners that we learnt more about other issues that many firms consider when making decisions about return-to-office mandates,” Ma explains. “Some practitioners, for example, believed working in the office benefits employee mental health by improving their work-life balance and reducing burnout. As a result, we did a follow-up study on how working from home affects employee mental health.”
Sustainable investing
Another paper in the top ten for downloads — “Counterproductive sustainable investing: the impact elasticity of brown and green firms” by Samuel Hartzmark of Carroll School of Management at Boston College and Kelly Shue of Yale School of Management — contends that, while investing in “green” (environmentally-friendly) companies is meant to help the planet, it can sometimes make “brown” (polluting) companies worse without really helping the green ones much.
Essentially, when it becomes cheaper for green companies to borrow money, it does not change their pollution a great deal. However, when “brown” companies face higher costs, they might pollute even more, suggesting that investment strategies need to be better designed to encourage real improvements in both types of companies.
The authors introduced a new measure called “impact elasticity”, which quantifies the change in a company’s environmental impact resulting from shifts in its cost of capital. They argue for a more nuanced approach that not only encourages improvements in brown companies but also recognises the significant emissions reductions achievable through meaningful investment strategies in high-emission sectors.
They also call for a re-evaluation of sustainable investing practices to enhance their effectiveness in achieving genuine environmental progress.
“Our biggest desire for this paper is to influence how sustainable investing is actually practised,” says Hartzmark. “By presenting facts that we can use to encourage debate, we hope our research influences how these major decisions are actually implemented and ensuring that they have the biggest impact on the climate that is possible.
“It’s humbling to know that people find your work interesting and, hopefully, it’s a sign that people are engaging with our research and changing what they do because of it.”
Read the full article here