Incentivizing Information Exchange Within Groups: The Role of Voting Protocols in U.S. Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committees

References

• Amabile TM, Goldfarb P, Brackfield SC (1990) Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Res. J. 3(1):6–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow KJ (1969) Classificatory notes on the production and transmission of technological knowledge. Amer. Econom. Rev. 59(2):29–35.Google Scholar
• Banerjee AV (1992) A simple model of herd behavior. Quart. J. Econom. 107(3):797–817.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker JA, Guilbeault D, Smith EB (2022) The crowd classification problem: Social dynamics of binary-choice accuracy. Management Sci. 68(5):3949–3965.Link, Google Scholar
• Bhaskaran SR, Ramachandran K (2011) Managing technology selection and development risk in competitive environments. Production Oper. Management 20(4):541–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bikhchandani S, Hirshleifer D, Welch I (1992) A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. J. Political Econom. 100(5):992–1026.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonate PL (2000) Analysis of Pretest-Posttest Designs, 1st ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Böttcher L, Klingebiel R (2025) Organizational selection of innovation. Organ. Sci. 36(1):387–410.Link, Google Scholar
• Breen R, Karlson KB, Holm A (2013) Total, direct, and indirect effects in logit and probit models. Sociol. Methods Res. 42(2):164–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Callander S (2007) Bandwagons and momentum in sequential voting. Rev. Econom. Stud. 74(3):653–684.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Edmondson AC, Jang S (2019) Cross-silo leadership. Harvard Bus. Rev. 97(3):130–139.Google Scholar
• Chan TH, Lim SY (2023) The emergence of novel product uses: An investigation of exaptations in IKEA hacks. Management Sci. 69(5):2870–2892. Link, Google Scholar
• Chan TH, Liu H, Keck S, Tang W (2023) When do teams generate valuable inventions? The moderating role of invention integrality on the effects of expertise similarity, network cohesion, and gender diversity. Production Oper. Management 32(6):1760–1777.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandrasekaran A, Mishra A (2012) Task design, team context, and psychological safety: An empirical analysis of R&D projects in high technology organizations. Production Oper. Management 21(6):977–996.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chao RO, Kavadias S (2008) A theoretical framework for managing the new product development portfolio: When and how to use strategic buckets. Management Sci. 54(5):907–921.Link, Google Scholar
• Chao RO, Lichtendahl KC Jr, Grushka-Cockayne Y (2014) Incentives in a stage-gate process. Production Oper. Management 23(8):1286–1298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choo AS, Linderman KW, Schroeder RG (2007) Method and psychological effects on learning behaviors and knowledge creation in quality improvement projects. Management Sci. 53(3):437–450.Link, Google Scholar
• Collaros PA, Anderson LR (1969) Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. J. Appl. Psych. 53(2):159–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook D, Brown D, Alexander R, March R, Morgan P, Satterthwaite G, Pangalos MN (2014) Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: A five-dimensional framework. Nature Rev. Drug Discovery 13(6):419–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper RG (1990) Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Bus. Horizons 33(3):44–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper J, Golec J (2019) Conflicts of interest on committees of experts: The case of Food and Drug Administration drug advisory committees. J. Law Econom. 62(2):321–346.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cornelius PB, Gokpinar B (2020) The role of customer investor involvement in crowdfunding success. Management Sci. 66(1):452–472.Link, Google Scholar
• Corrigan-Curay J, Sacks L, Woodcock J (2018) Real-world evidence and real-world data for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 320(9):867–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cottrell NB (1972) Social facilitation. McClintock C, ed. Experimental Social Psychology (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York), 185–236.Google Scholar
• Crama P, Sting FJ, Wu Y (2019) Encouraging help across projects. Management Sci. 65(3):1408–1429.Link, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2017) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J. 60(2):433–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2021) The sequence effect in panel decisions: Evidence from the evaluation of research and development projects. Organ. Sci. 32(4):987–1008.Link, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Eggers J (2013) Organizational decision making: An information aggregation view. Management Sci. 59(10):2257–2277.Link, Google Scholar
• DeGroot MH (1974) Reaching a consensus. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69(345):118–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW (2016) Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econom. 47:20–33. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M, Eliashberg J (2002) Structuring the new product development pipeline. Management Sci. 48(3):343–363.Link, Google Scholar
• Dougherty D (1992) Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organ. Sci. 3(2):179–202.Link, Google Scholar
• Duhigg C (2016) What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. New York Times (February 28), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html.Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2):350–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC (2003) Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. J. Management Stud. 40(6):1419–1452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming TR (2005) Surrogate endpoints and FDA’s accelerated approval process. Health Affairs 24(1):67–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigone D, Hastie R (1993) The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 65(5):959–974. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Girotra K, Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT (2007) Valuing R&D projects in a portfolio: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Management Sci. 53(9):1452–1466.Link, Google Scholar
• Girotra K, Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT (2010) Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Sci. 56(4):591–605.Link, Google Scholar
• Hao L, Suen W (2009) Viewpoint: Decision-making in committees. Canadian J. Econom. 42(2):359–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hegedus DM, Rasmussen RV (1986) Task effectiveness and interaction process of a modified nominal group technique in solving an evaluation problem. J. Management 12(4):545–560.Google Scholar
• Hong L, Page SE (2001) Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. J. Econom. Theory 97(1):123–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(46):16385–16389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong H, Kubik JD, Solomon A (2000) Security analysts’ career concerns and herding of earnings forecasts. RAND J. Econom. 31(1):121–144. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huckman RS, Staats BR (2011) Fluid tasks and fluid teams: The impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 13(3):310–328.Link, Google Scholar
• Janis IL (1971) Groupthink. Psych. Today 5:43–46, 74–76.Google Scholar
• Jones BF (2009) The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? Rev. Econom. Stud. 76(1):283–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jordan KN, Sterling J, Pennebaker JW, Boyd RL (2019) Examining long-term trends in politics and culture through language of political leaders and cultural institutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116(9):3476–3481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kacewicz E, Pennebaker JW, Davis M, Jeon M, Graesser AC (2014) Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. J. Language Soc. Psych. 33(2):125–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kavadias S, Sommer SC (2009) The effects of problem structure and team diversity on brainstorming effectiveness. Management Sci. 55(12):1899–1913.Link, Google Scholar
• Keck S, Tang W (2018) Gender composition and group confidence judgment: The perils of all-male groups. Management Sci. 64(12):5877–5898. Link, Google Scholar
• Kim PH (1997) When what you know can hurt you: A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 69(2):165–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kool W, McGuire JT, Rosen ZB, Botvinick MM (2010) Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. J. Experiment. Psych.: General 139(4):665–682.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishnan V, Bhattacharya S (2002) Technology selection and commitment in new product development: The role of uncertainty and design flexibility. Management Sci. 48(3):313–327.Link, Google Scholar
• Kurtuluş M, Nakkas A, Ülkü S (2022) Allocation of operational decisions in retail supply chains. IISE Trans. 54(10):976–987.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, Himmelstein DU, Wolfe SM, Bor DH (2002) Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 287(17):2215–2220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee JY, Swink M, Pandejpong T (2011) The roles of worker expertise, information sharing quality, and psychological safety in manufacturing process innovation: An intellectual capital perspective. Production Oper. Management 20(4):556–570.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis JH (1993) Risk/benefit assessment of new drugs: Perspectives of a former FDA advisory committee member. Drug Inform. J. 27(4):1037–1049. Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacKinnon D, Lockwood C, Brown C, Wang W, Hoffman J (2007) The intermediate endpoint effect in logistic and probit regression. Clinical Trials 4(5):499–513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markou P, Kavadias S, Oraiopoulos N (2023) Rival signals and project selection: Insights from the drug development process. Management Sci. 69(9):5298–5315. Link, Google Scholar
• McIntyre TD, Pappas M, DiBiasi JJ (2013) How FDA Advisory Committee members prepare and what influences them. Therapeutic Innovation Regulatory Sci. 47(1):32–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mikolov T, Sutskever I, Chen K, Corrado GS, Dean J (2013) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Burges CJ, Bottou L, Welling M, Ghahramani Z, Weinberger KQ, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 26 (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY), 3111–3119.Google Scholar
• Mukhopadhaya K (2003) Jury size and the free rider problem. J. Law Econom. Organ. 19(1):24–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newham M, Midjord R (2019) Do expert panelists herd? Evidence from FDA committees. Preprint, submitted October 28, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3476536.Google Scholar
• Oraiopoulos N, Kavadias S (2020) Is diversity (un-)biased? Project selection decisions in executive committees. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 22(5):906–924.Link, Google Scholar
• Pennebaker JW, Chung CK, Frazee J, Lavergne GM, Beaver DI (2014) When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLoS One 9(12):1–10.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Persico N (2004) Committee design with endogenous information. Rev. Econom. Stud. 71(1):165–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pich MT, Loch CH, Meyer AD (2002) On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Sci. 48(8):1008–1023.Link, Google Scholar
• Robertson RD (1980) Small group decision making: The uncertain role of information in reducing uncertainty. Political Behav. 2:163–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sah RK, Stiglitz JE (1988) Committees, hierarchies and polyarchies. Econom. J. 98(391):451–470.Google Scholar
• Siemsen E, Balasubramanian S, Roth AV (2007) Incentives that induce task-related effort, helping, and knowledge sharing in workgroups. Management Sci. 53(10):1533–1550.Link, Google Scholar
• Siemsen E, Roth AV, Balasubramanian S, Anand G (2009) The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 11(3):429–447.Link, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 106(6):467–482.Google Scholar
• Smith JF, Townsend SA, Singh N, Ma P (2012) FDA advisory committee meeting outcomes. Nature Rev. Drug Discovery 11(7):513–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sommer SC, Loch CH (2004) Selectionism and learning in projects with complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty. Management Sci. 50(10):1334–1347.Link, Google Scholar
• Sommer SC, Bendoly E, Kavadias S (2020) How do you search for the best alternative? Experimental evidence on search strategies to solve complex problems. Management Sci. 66(3):1395–1420.Link, Google Scholar
• Staats BR, Milkman KL, Fox CR (2012) The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 118(2):132–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stasser G, Stewart D (1992) Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 63(3):426–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 48(6):1467–1478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sunstein CR, Hastie R (2015) Garbage in, garbage out? Some micro sources of macro errors. J. Institutional Econom. 11(3):561–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutton RI, Hargadon A (1996) Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(4):685–718.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Terwiesch C, Loch CH (2004) Collaborative prototyping and the pricing of custom-designed products. Management Sci. 50(2):145–158.Link, Google Scholar
• Urfalino P, Costa P (2015) Secret-public voting in FDA advisory committees. Elster J, ed. Secrecy and Publicity in Votes and Debates (Cambridge University Press, New York), 165–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2008) Guidance for FDA advisory committee members and FDA staff: Voting procedures for advisory committee meetings. Guidance document, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL (1971) Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Acad. Management J. 14(2):203–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL (1974) The effectiveness of nominal, delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Acad. Management J. 17(4):605–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Visser B, Swank OH (2007) On committees of experts. Quart. J. Econom. 122(1):337–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Hippel E (1998) Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management Sci. 44(5):629–644.Link, Google Scholar
• Wilks SS (1932) Certain generalizations in the analysis of variance. Biometrika 24(3/4):471–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum GM, Hubbell AP, Zuckerman C (1999) Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(5):967–978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wood SF, Perosino KL (2008) Increasing transparency at the FDA: The impact of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007. Public Health Rep. 123(July–August):527–531.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woolley AWW, Chabris CFF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TWW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zwiebel J (1995) Corporate conservatism and relative compensation. J. Political Econom. 103(1):1–25.Crossref, Google Scholar