Revise and Resubmit - The Mayukh Show

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:19:03Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:38:10Danish Podcast Starts at 00:51:38ReferenceAsante, E.A., Khurshid, H., Affum-Osei, E., Khurshid, F. and Antwi, C.O. (2026), Will It Stick or Go Away? Examining How the Experience of Former Supervisor's Abuse Affects Newcomers' Adjustment. J. Manage. Stud.. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70092‌‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit. 🎙️🧠There is a particular kind of bruise that does not show up in a mirror. You carry it into the next room, the next job, the next bright beginning. You tell yourself, this time will be different. And maybe it will. But your body still remembers the old rules. Your mind still listens for the footstep that once meant danger.Today, I am bringing you a new piece of research with a deceptively simple question baked into its title: Will It Stick or Go Away? Examining How the Experience of Former Supervisor's Abuse Affects Newcomers' Adjustment. It is by Eric Adom Asante, Hamid Khurshid, Emmanuel Affum-Osei, Faisal Khurshid, and Collins Opoku Antwi, published online on 02 March 2026 in the Journal of Management Studies, one of the truly prestigious journals on the FT50 list. 🏛️📌What I love about this paper is that it refuses the comforting fantasy that you can just quit a bad boss and be instantly free. Most abusive supervision research stays inside the original workplace, like the story ends when you hand in your resignation. But these authors ask what happens after the exit. What follows you into the new office, the new onboarding, the new supervisor who has not yet done anything wrong.Using the social cognitive model of transference, they show something painfully human: when you have been burned before, you start protecting yourself early. You avoid interacting with your current supervisor, and you seek less feedback, even though feedback is often the oxygen of a good start. That self-protection then quietly taxes your in-role performance and your job satisfaction. One field study plus two experiments later, the message lands with weight: a toxic manager can cast a shadow that crosses organizational borders. 🌒📉And the practical heartbeat is this: if you are a leader welcoming a newcomer, you are not meeting a blank slate. You are meeting a person with a work history, and sometimes that history includes harm. Trust is not a vibe. It is a deliberate practice. 🤝🛠️Thank you to Eric Adom Asante, Hamid Khurshid, Emmanuel Affum-Osei, Faisal Khurshid, and Collins Opoku Antwi, and to the Journal of Management Studies, published by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd., for research that names what so many people feel but struggle to explain. 🙏📄If you want more research stories that stay close to real lives, subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and join the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher. 🎧✅📺 You can also find this podcast on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast.Now here is what I cannot stop wondering: when a newcomer seems distant, quiet, or allergic to feedback, how often are we witnessing “lack of motivation” and how often are we witnessing an old wound trying not to reopen? 🤔🩹

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:21:50Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:42:51Danish Podcast Starts at 01:00:37ReferenceTom Quinn (2025). Yes, Ma’am: The Secret Life of Royal Servants. Biteback Publishing. https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/yes-ma-amYoutube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherConnect on linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and to this episode of Weekend Book Review. I’m so glad you’re here.There are some books that do not merely open a door. They seem to slip quietly past it, down the corridor, and into the rooms where history is still breathing. 📚👑 And that is very much the feeling I had as I entered Yes, Ma’am: The Secret Life of Royal Servants by Tom Quinn, published by Biteback Publishing, out in hardback and ebook on 20 March 2025, with the paperback scheduled for 31 March 2026.This is, on its face, a book about royal servants. But as I read it, I kept feeling that it is also a book about intimacy, power, routine, dependency, silence, class, and the peculiar ways human beings arrange themselves around prestige. Tom Quinn, who has written widely on the royal family, country houses, London history, servants, and the great eccentricities of British life, is uniquely suited to tell this story. He brings to the page the patience of a social historian and the ear of a storyteller. 🕯️🏰Quinn has spent years writing about the people who stand just outside the official portrait, the ones who button the cuffs, carry the messages, manage the moods, polish the silver, and keep the machinery of grandeur from falling apart. In that sense, Yes, Ma’am is not just about royalty. It is about the hidden labor that makes majesty possible. It is about those who see everything and are expected to say nothing. 🤫👞🐎And what makes this book so compelling is that it understands something deeply human. The monarchy may seem distant, theatrical, even mythic. But the life around it is full of ordinary absurdities and extraordinary loyalties. Here are footmen and valets, ladies-in-waiting and equerries, people who live close enough to power to smell its perfume and its panic. Through them, Quinn shows us that the royal household is not just an institution. It is a world, old and strange, tender and brittle, disciplined and emotional all at once. 👀📖So in today’s episode, I want to sit with this book, listen to what it reveals, and think a little about what happens when history is told not from the throne, but from the staircase behind it. 🏛️✨Thank you to Tom Quinn, and thanks as well to Biteback Publishing for this fascinating book.If you enjoy conversations like this, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and also subscribe to the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher 🎧📺. You can also find the podcast on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast 🍎🎙️So let me begin here: if the people who serve power are the ones who know it best, what do they finally teach us about the people the rest of the world calls royal?

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:21:13Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:36:47Danish Podcast Starts at 00:52:14ReferenceBurø, T., & Christiansen, L. H. (2026). Tech will save us: The semiotic construction of utopian myth. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406261432836‌‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, the podcast where we sit with ideas long enough to hear what they are really trying to say.Some papers do not merely explain the world. They reveal the stories that have already explained it for us. This one begins in the glowing promise of technology, in the bright music of innovation, in the polished theater of entrepreneurial hope, and asks a question that feels almost impolite in its honesty: what if the future we are being sold is less a plan than a myth? 🌍⚡Today, we turn to a remarkable new article, Tech will save us: The semiotic construction of utopian myth, by Thomas Burø and Laerke Højgaard Christiansen, published online on 06 March 2026 in Organization Studies 📘, one of the most prestigious journals in management and organization scholarship, and proudly part of the FT50 journal list. Published by SAGE Publications, this paper invites us into a world where technology does not simply innovate, but signifies, performs, and persuades.Drawing on Roland Barthes and using multimodal semiotic analysis, the authors examine the promotional videos of TechBBQ, the largest tech event in the Nordics. And what they uncover is not just branding. It is something far more powerful. It is the careful construction of a utopian myth 🚀🌱, a story in which the tech ecosystem appears not only creative and dynamic, but morally destined to solve the grand challenges of our time, including climate change.But myths do important work. They inspire hope. They create belonging. They elevate fields into agents of history. And, as this paper shows with striking clarity, they can also naturalize power, grant legitimacy, and allow organizations to claim ownership over society’s deepest problems without ever having to promise concrete action. That is what makes this study so compelling. It is not cynical, and it is not naïve. It is attentive to the seduction of possibility, and to the politics hidden inside that seduction. 🔍✨So in this episode, we ask what happens when tech becomes not just an industry, but a salvation story. What kind of future is being imagined, who gets to author it, and what disappears when hope itself becomes a form of organization? 🤔Before we begin, do subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify 🎧 and follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher ▶️. You can also find the show on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast 🍎📺, so wherever you listen, stay with us and stay curious.Our thanks to the authors, Thomas Burø and Laerke Højgaard Christiansen, and to SAGE Publications for bringing this important work into the world.And now the question that lingers, quietly but insistently: when someone says tech will save us, are we hearing a solution, or are we hearing a myth? ✨

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:19:58Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:43:19Danish Podcast Starts at 01:02:00ReferenceRohleder, P. (2025). The Oedipus Complex: A Contemporary Introduction (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003394471Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherConnect on linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and to this episode of Weekend Book Review. 🎙️📚I have always loved the moment when a serious idea stops being a museum piece and starts breathing again, right there in the room with you. This weekend, I am holding a book that tries to do exactly that for one of psychoanalysis’ most famous, most misunderstood, and most argued over notions: The Oedipus Complex: A Contemporary Introduction by Poul Rohleder (Routledge, published September 10, 2025). 🧠✨Rohleder is not writing from a distance. He is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalytic psychotherapist in private practice in central London, a Senior Member of the British Psychotherapy Foundation, and an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the University of Essex. So when he walks us back to Freud, he is not doing it to genuflect. He is doing it the way a working clinician returns to an old map, not to admire the ink, but to see what still helps when the weather turns. 🗺️🩺What I appreciate here is the book’s steady, humane ambition. It starts with Freud’s original formulations, then moves through later transformations with Melanie Klein and the UK Independents, and then keeps going, pulling in French psychoanalysis and contemporary relational thought. Along the way, Rohleder does not dodge the criticisms. He steps into them: feminist critiques, queer perspectives, cross-cultural questions, and the complicated modern realities of gender and desire. 🌈⚖️🌍And yet, the heart of the book is not scandal, not shock, not Freud as a punchline. It is something quieter and, honestly, more useful. Rohleder keeps returning to triangular dynamics, the child and caregivers, the ache of rivalry, the longing to matter, the fear of exclusion, the first rehearsals of relationship itself. He shows how those early configurations can shape intersubjectivity, the way we learn to be with another person without collapsing or conquering. 💬🧩In this Weekend Book Review, I will ask a simple question with a stubborn afterlife: when we strip away the caricature, what is left of the Oedipus complex that still helps a contemporary practitioner listen, and helps the rest of us recognize the old dramas hiding inside new stories? 🔍📖Before we begin, thank you to Poul Rohleder and Routledge for this book. 🙏🏽🏛️If you enjoy these reviews, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher. ✅🎧📺 You can also find the show on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast.Now tell me, as you think about your own life and the lives you study, where do you still see that triangle quietly reappearing, asking to be understood again? 🤔🔺

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:19:24Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:32:41Danish Podcast Starts at 00:44:17ReferenceJiang, J., Tuli, K. R., & Kumar, N. (2026). SECURING A CALIBRATED MARKETING BUDGET. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429261431239‌‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨ the place where serious scholarship meets the messy, human backstage of how big decisions actually get made.Because here is the thing about a “budget” in a multinational corporation. On paper, it looks like math. In real life, it looks like a relationship. It is a story told in numbers, yes, but also in trust, worry, persuasion, and the quiet politics of who believes whom when the stakes are high 📊🧠.Today’s episode dives into a brand-new article, published online on 27 February 2026 in the Journal of Marketing, a truly prestigious outlet and proudly part of the FT50 journal list 🏛️🏆. The paper is titled “Securing a calibrated marketing budget” by Junqiu Jiang, Kapil R. Tuli, and Nirmalya Kumar.What they do, with the patience of careful listening and the clarity of sharp theory, is shift our gaze away from the usual question, “What is the optimal marketing budget?” and toward the more uncomfortable one: “How does a marketing budget survive the journey through the organization?” 🧩Their idea of a calibrated marketing budget, or CMKB, is disarmingly practical. It is not just a number you defend once and forget. It is iterative, participative, and built to align promised performance with allocated resources, again and again, until it is sturdy enough to carry the weight of expectation. And in that process, the CMO is not merely presenting forecasts. The CMO is sending signals to the CEO, signals about quality and signals about intent 🔎🤝.Quality signals sound like the language of competence: granularity that shows you have done the work, opportunity elaboration that shows you see the upside clearly, threat mitigation that proves you are not naïve about competitors or shocks. Intent signals sound like the language of reassurance: cultivated endorsements that say, “Others believe this too,” and relinquishment that says, “I am not gaming you, I am sharing control.” The study even distinguishes between Growth Focused and Constrained CMKBs, showing that what persuades in one context can fall flat in another ⚖️📈📉.If that makes you slightly uneasy, good. Because it suggests that budgeting is not a sterile exercise in allocation. It is a live negotiation about uncertainty, accountability, and what kind of future the firm is willing to fund.If you’re enjoying these conversations, subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify and follow us on YouTube at “Weekend Researcher” 🎧📺. You can also find the show on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast 🍏🎙️.And a sincere thank you to the authors, Junqiu Jiang, Kapil R. Tuli, and Nirmalya Kumar, and to SAGE Publications for publishing this important work in the Journal of Marketing 🙏📚.So here is the question I can’t stop thinking about 🌀: when a CMO “secures” a calibrated marketing budget, are they really securing resources, or are they securing belief?

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:19:31Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:29:46Danish Podcast Starts at 00:47:46ReferenceLebow, R. N. (2026). Why Nations Still Fight. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009701068Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherConnect on linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and this is your “Weekend Book Review” 📚✨Some books don’t just explain the world. They quietly rearrange it, like furniture moved in the dark, so that when you wake up you keep bumping into new corners of your own certainty. Tonight, I’m sitting with a question that feels both old and embarrassingly current: if war is so ruinously expensive, so publicly condemned, and so frequently unsuccessful for the people who start it, why do nations still reach for it anyway? 🕯️🌍The book on my desk is Why Nations Still Fight by Richard Ned Lebow, published on 08 January 2026 by Cambridge University Press. Lebow is not a pundit passing through the scene. He is Professor Emeritus of International Political Theory at King’s College London’s War Studies department, an Honorary Fellow at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and the James O. Freedman Presidential Professor Emeritus at Dartmouth. He’s also a Fellow of the British Academy. And I love this detail: alongside all that gravitas, he writes short stories, murder mysteries, and counterfactual historical fiction. That range matters, because this book is about the stories nations tell themselves before they light the match 🔥🧠This work follows his earlier Why Nations Fight (2010), but it carries the weight of a long view. Lebow draws on an original dataset of interventions and wars from 1945 to today, and he walks us through eighty-eight cases of interstate conflict with short, sharp case studies. His argument is unsettling in its simplicity: wars often begin not with clear-eyed strategy, but with miscalculation, lazy or performative risk assessment, and the kind of cultural and political arrogance that makes leaders think reality will politely cooperate.And then he pushes harder. He says a lot of our familiar realist and rationalist theories simply don’t fit what we keep seeing. Nations do not always fight for security in a neat, rational calculus. They fight for something messier, something human. Lebow leans on thumos, the hunger for status, prestige, and sometimes revenge. The pursuit of being seen. The refusal to be slighted. The need to prove you still matter ⚔️👀He also doesn’t let great powers off the hook. In his account, states like the United States and Russia stumble into interventions that they expect to control, only to discover that force is a poor substitute for foresight, and that winning militarily can still mean losing politically. Again and again.In this episode, I’ll walk you through what Lebow is really claiming, what it challenges in the way we study war, and what his “irrationalist” turn might open up for how we forecast the future of conflict 📈🧩Before we begin, my sincere thanks to Richard Ned Lebow and Cambridge University Press for bringing this book into the conversation 🙏📘If you enjoy “Weekend Book Review,” please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, and subscribe to my YouTube channel, Weekend Researcher 🎧▶️ You can also find the show on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast.So here’s the question I want to start with, and I want you to hold it close as we go: if nations keep losing, keep regretting, and keep insisting they’re rational, what exactly are they still fighting for? 🤔🌑

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:14:44Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:36:34French Podcast Starts at 00:55:23ReferenceRichardson, I., Kakabadse, A., & Kakabadse, N. (2011). Bilderberg People: Elite Power and Consensus in World Affairs (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807842Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherConnect on linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/🎙️ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and to our episode series, Weekend Classics. I am glad you are here.There is a particular kind of silence that arrives when powerful people agree with each other. It is not the silence of secrecy, exactly. It is the silence of doors that close softly, of name tags that do not reach the public eye, of sentences that begin as questions and end as policy. And every time I hear that silence, I think about the rest of us, standing outside it, trying to guess what is being decided in rooms we will never enter.📚 Today, on Weekend Classics, I am reviewing a book that does something rare. It walks toward the guarded garden without pretending it has discovered a hidden tunnel. Bilderberg People: Elite Power and Consensus in World Affairs (2011), published by Routledge, is not interested in conspiracy theatre. It is interested in something both quieter and more unsettling: the ordinary human mechanics of influence, the subtle calibrations of status, belonging, and persuasion, and the way consensus can be crafted until it feels like common sense.🕴️ The authors, Ian Richardson, Andrew Kakabadse, and Nada Kakabadse, come to this subject with an unusual blend of credentials and curiosity. Richardson is anchored in scholarship at Stockholm University Business School and Cranfield, but he also carries the lived memory of entrepreneurship in Europe’s digital information sector. He understands, in other words, how regulation, innovation, and power can shake hands in private and then show up in public wearing clean gloves.Andrew Kakabadse, a globally recognized authority on leadership and governance at Cranfield, has spent a career studying boardrooms and the rituals of decision making across continents. And Nada K. Kakabadse, Professor of Management and Business Research at the University of Northampton and a prolific scholar of governance, ethics, strategy, and the social impact of ICT, brings an eye for how institutions justify themselves, especially when accountability feels… negotiable.🔍 What makes this book compelling is its method and its mood. Through exclusive interviews with attendees of the Bilderberg meetings, it asks what elite networking actually looks like when you strip away the smoke machine. It suggests that elite consensus is not a spontaneous harmony of brilliant minds. It is a product, shaped by relationships, hierarchy, and the soft power of who gets heard, who gets deferred to, and who learns the language of enlightened agreement.🌍 And here is the part that stays with me: the tension between private diplomacy and democratic accountability is not an abstract dilemma in these pages. It is a lived condition of modern life. The world is interconnected, yes, but it is also unevenly audible. Some voices travel further, faster, and with fewer questions asked.So as we step into this Weekend Classics review together, let me ask you something I cannot stop wondering 🧠✨ If consensus is built behind closed doors through subtle relationships rather than open debate, then what would real public accountability even look like in a world run on private agreement?🙏 My thanks to the authors, Ian Richardson, Andrew Kakabadse, and Nada Kakabadse, and to Routledge for bringing this work into print.🎧 If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, and subscribe to my YouTube channel, Weekend Researcher. You can also find Revise and Resubmit on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast.

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:07Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:36:11French Podcast Starts at 00:53:26ReferenceNathan, B., Perez-Truglia, R., & Zentner, A. (2026). Paying your fair share: Perceived fairness and tax compliance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 101838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2025.101838‌‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨ the show where serious research meets real life, and where the footnotes often point straight back to the heart.Picture a quiet street in Dallas County. Lawns trimmed. Mailboxes upright. Neighbors waving like they always do. And then, somewhere between the grocery receipt and the school pickup, a thought sneaks in that can change everything: “Am I paying more than everyone else?” 🤔💸 Not “Do I owe taxes?” but “Is this fair?” Because taxes are never only numbers. They are stories we tell ourselves about belonging, responsibility, and whether the system is treating us like a sucker or like a citizen.Today’s episode dives into a brand-new paper published online on 20 February 2026, titled “Paying your fair share: Perceived fairness and tax compliance” by Brad Nathan, Ricardo Perez-Truglia, and Alejandro Zentner 📄🔍 in the Journal of Accounting and Economics, a prestigious FT50 journal 🏛️📚.Here is the human hinge of the study. The authors run a natural field experiment around U.S. property taxes, using an information-disclosure intervention that shifts what households think other people pay. Not a lecture. Not a moral scolding. Just a nudge of knowledge. And what happens when people believe the average taxpayer is paying more? They see the system as fairer, and they become less likely to file a tax appeal ✅🧾. The numbers are striking: for every additional $1$1 people believe the average household pays, a taxpayer is willing to contribute about $0.43$0.43 more. That is not just compliance. That is conditional cooperation, the quiet bargain of community 🤝🏘️.But fairness, as always, has context. In the experiment, people learn the average rate, but not the reasons it differs from theirs. Then the survey comes in with the twist: when households learn others might pay lower rates because of exemptions, like disability or advanced age, they tolerate inequality more readily ❤️‍🩹👵. Many support those breaks, yet a meaningful share still prefers the clean symmetry of equal rates, no matter the story. It is a reminder that “fair” can mean “equal,” and “fair” can also mean “merciful,” and those two meanings sometimes wrestle in the same mind ⚖️🧠.If you want research that speaks to policy, to psychology, and to the everyday friction of comparing yourself to the neighbors, you are in the right place 🔔🎧.Subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and also follow us on YouTube at “Weekend Researcher” ▶️📌. You can also listen on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast 🍎🎙️.And with sincere thanks to the authors, Brad Nathan, Ricardo Perez-Truglia, and Alejandro Zentner, and to Elsevier, the publisher of this article 🙏📘, let me leave you with a question that lingers: if your willingness to pay depends on what you believe others pay, what does that say about taxes, and what does it say about us? ❓✨

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:53Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:40:27French Podcast Starts at 00:59:35ReferenceZhao, H. H., Wang, M., Yuan, Y., Ni, D., Zheng, X., & Lam, S. S. K. (2026). Detachment and Attachment: A Dual-Pathway Model of Leader Succession Rituals. Journal of Management, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063261419057‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Wel­come to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨ the show where serious research still gets to feel like a human story, the kind you can recognize in your own bones.Think about the moment a leader leaves. Not the org chart update, not the email with the careful subject line, but the quieter aftershock. The familiar voice is gone. The old habits linger in conference rooms like perfume. People smile, people clap, people say “exciting times,” and meanwhile everyone privately wonders, “What exactly are we allowed to believe in now?” 👀🗝️Today we are stepping into that in-between space with a paper that treats succession as more than a handoff. It treats it as a ritual. The article is titled “Detachment and Attachment: A Dual-Pathway Model of Leader Succession Rituals” by Helen H. Zhao, Mo Wang, Yue Yuan, Dan Ni, Xiaoming Zheng, and Simon S.K. Lam, published online on 23 February 2026 in the Journal of Management, which is not just respected, but prestigious and firmly on the FT50 list 🏛️📚.Here is the idea, told plainly but with its full weight. When organizations change leaders, they often reach for rituals to tame uncertainty and make the transition feel real. The authors map six of these rituals, and you can almost see them play out like scenes:Artifact adoption 🧩: the new leader takes up symbolic objects or practicesEndorsement act 🤝: the new leader gets publicly validatedWelcome ceremony 🎉: the community formally receives the new leaderArtifact return 📦: symbols of the prior era get handed back or set asideClosure act 🔒: the ending is marked, not merely impliedFarewell ceremony 👋: the former leader is publicly releasedAnd the twist, the satisfying clarity, is the dual-pathway model: some rituals build attachment to the new leader, while others help people detach from the former one. This is not only qualitative insight either. The authors begin by listening closely and naming what is happening, then they test it in a real firm during acquisition-driven succession, and then again with an experiment across working adults. Across those studies, certain rituals stand out as especially powerful: endorsement acts, welcome ceremonies, and farewells 🎯.If you like episodes that move from symbolism to evidence, from felt experience to tested mechanism, you are in the right place. Subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify ✅🎧 and follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher ▶️🔔. You can also find the show on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast 🍎📻.And as we open this conversation about how organizations say hello and goodbye, ask yourself this: when the next leader arrives, will your workplace only introduce them, or will it also give everyone permission to let the old one go? ❓🕯️Thanks to the authors, Helen H. Zhao, Mo Wang, Yue Yuan, Dan Ni, Xiaoming Zheng, and Simon S.K. Lam, and thanks as well to SAGE Publications for publishing this research in the Journal of Management.

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:02Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:35:38French Podcast Starts at 00:55:00ReferenceMagrizos, S., L. E. Aydinliyim, D. Roumpi, C. M. Porter, J. M. Phillips, and J. E. Delery. 2026. “ The Disquiet of Quiet Quitting: Definitional Clarity, Theoretical Pathways, and Future Research.” Human Resource Management 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70061‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️📚 where we take big, prestigious research and make it feel like something you can hold in your hands, turn over, and actually use.Quiet quitting. Two words that sound like a whisper, yet somehow land like a headline. It is the office chair that stops rolling forward. It is the extra mile quietly reclaimed. It is not a tantrum, not a vanishing act, not necessarily burnout. It is something more precise and more unsettling: a calibrated decision to do the job, but stop donating the self.Today, we are stepping into a truly prestigious venue: Human Resource Management, an FT50 journal. 🏛️✨ And we are doing it through a timely review published online on 18 February 2026: “The Disquiet of Quiet Quitting: Definitional Clarity, Theoretical Pathways, and Future Research,” by Solon Magrizos, Lauren E. Aydinliyim, Dorothea Roumpi, Caitlin M. Porter, Jean M. Phillips, and John E. Delery.What I love about this piece is that it refuses to let quiet quitting stay as a social-media mood. It asks for definitional clarity, then earns it. Drawing from 11 papers in a special issue, the authors map what quiet quitting is and what it is not, and they insist we take its many faces seriously. 🧩🔍 Deliberate versus passive. Reactive versus value-driven. Narrow versus broad in scope. Not one story, but a set of stories we have been lumping together because it felt easier.Then comes the part that lingers: the 2 × 22 typology of quiet quitters. Four characters walking around modern work life like they have always been here, only now they have names. Protesters ✊, Faders 🌫️, Boundary Setters 🧘, and Indifferent Drifters 🧊. Different motives, different levels of intentionality, different signals about fairness, well-being, and what “sustainable engagement” even means when everyone is tired of pretending.If this is not just a trend but a message, then the real question becomes: what exactly is your workplace hearing when someone stops doing the “extra,” and what are you hearing about yourself when you feel relieved to stop? 🎧🤔Before we dive in, subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify and follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher 📌🎥. You can also listen on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast 🍎🎙️.And with sincere thanks to the authors and to the publisher, Wiley Periodicals LLC, for bringing this important review to Human Resource Management 🙏📄: when you hear “quiet quitting,” who do you picture first, a Protester, a Fader, a Boundary Setter, or an Indifferent Drifter, and why?

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:48Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:37:38French Podcast Starts at 00:53:56ReferenceDoms, H., Weiss, M. and Hoegl, M. (2026), Micro-Processes of Constrained Innovation: A Field Study of Constraint-Handling Practices in Base of the Pyramid Innovation Projects. J. Manage. Stud.. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70065‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/🎙️✨ Welcome to the podcast Revise and Resubmit ✨🎙️The show where we step inside the pages of the world’s most prestigious management research and ask not just what was published… but why it matters.Today, we turn our attention to a remarkable article published online on 20 February 2026 in the Journal of Management Studies 📘. This is no ordinary outlet. It sits proudly on the FT50 list, the gold standard of academic journals, a place where only the most rigorous and thought-provoking scholarship finds a home.The paper is titled Micro-Processes of Constrained Innovation: A Field Study of Constraint-Handling Practices in Base of the Pyramid Innovation Projects by Helene Doms, Matthias Weiss, and Martin Hoegl.And here is the question that hums beneath their work:What if constraints are not the enemy of innovation… but its quiet architect? 🛠️🌍The authors take us into the lived realities of sixty innovation projects at the base of the pyramid across Africa and India. These are places where scarcity is not theoretical. It is daily. Immediate. Unavoidable.They discover that innovation under constraint is not a heroic leap. It is a series of micro-movements. Small decisions. Subtle shifts. A kind of choreography between what is possible and what is necessary.They distinguish between two kinds of constraints. Goal constraints, like the demand for extreme affordability. And task constraints, like the absence of funds, materials, or expertise. And in response, teams do something fascinating. They do not choose between planning and improvising. They cycle. 🔄They reduce.They reinterpret.They replace.They tinker.They network. 🤝They move between causation and effectuation, between deliberate design and resourceful improvisation. Not either or. Both. Again and again.Published by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., this study reminds managers and scholars alike that creativity is often born in the narrowest corridors. That scarcity sharpens attention. That limits invite imagination.It is humane research. It honors the ingenuity of people working not in abundance, but in constraint. And it offers a framework that managers everywhere can learn from, especially those who believe that innovation requires perfect conditions.Maybe it does not.Maybe it requires pressure.Maybe it requires less.If you enjoy deep dives into FT50 research that actually changes how we see the world of management, subscribe to 🎧 Revise and Resubmit on Spotify and to our YouTube channel Weekend Researcher 📺. You can also find us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast. Join a growing community that believes serious research deserves a serious audience.Our heartfelt thanks to the authors Helene Doms, Matthias Weiss, and Martin Hoegl, and to the publishers at the Journal of Management Studies for advancing scholarship at the highest level.And now we leave you with this:If innovation at the margins thrives not despite constraints but because of them… what constraints in your own work are quietly waiting to become catalysts? 🤔✨

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:19:43Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:38:09Danish Podcast Starts at 00:56:53ReferenceBriscoe, F., DesJardine, M. R., & Zhang, M. (2026). Interpreting Violence: How Community Context Shapes Corporate Responses to Street Protests. Administrative Science Quarterly, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392261419416‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/🎙️✨ Welcome to the podcast Revise and Resubmit ✨🎙️The show where we take you inside the pages of the world’s most prestigious management research and ask not just what it says… but why it matters.Today, we turn to a paper published in one of the most elite academic journals on the planet, the FT50-listed Administrative Science Quarterly. Yes, that Administrative Science Quarterly. The kind of journal where ideas are not simply reviewed, they are tested, turned, and tested again. Published by SAGE Publications on 19 February 2026, this article carries the intellectual weight that only an FT50 journal can confer. 🏛️📚The paper is titled Interpreting Violence: How Community Context Shapes Corporate Responses to Street Protests, authored by Forrest Briscoe, Mark R. DesJardine, and Muhan Zhang.Now pause for a moment.When violence erupts in the streets, what do business leaders see? Disorder? Or a cry for justice?In 2020, as the Black Lives Matter protests swept across cities, executives faced a dilemma. Speak up? Stay silent? Announce diversity initiatives? Publicly endorse the movement? Or do something quieter, safer, less declarative?This paper argues that the answer depends not only on the violence itself, but on memory. On history. On what the community has lived through before.If a city carries the scars of repeated protest violence unrelated to the current cause, leaders may interpret new unrest as more of the same. Noise. Instability. Risk. 🚧But if that same city has endured grievance-validating events, such as prior police shootings that signal systemic injustice, executives may see something else entirely. They may see legitimacy. They may see pain that demands acknowledgment.Using hand-collected data from Fortune 500 firms, the authors reveal a subtle calculus at work. Companies headquartered in communities marked by persistent non-movement violence were less likely to announce diversity actions in response to protest violence. Yet in places with histories of police misconduct, firms were more likely to take action, and sometimes even endorse the movement itself.Violence, in other words, is not interpreted in a vacuum. It is filtered through local memory. Through community embeddedness. Through the stories cities tell about themselves. 🏙️And here is the quiet brilliance of this FT50 study. It shows that corporate activism is neither purely instrumental nor purely moral. It is situated. It is contextual. It is shaped by the streets outside headquarters windows.So we ask: When companies respond to protest, are they reacting to the present moment… or to the past that still lingers beneath it?Thank you to the authors, Forrest Briscoe, Mark R. DesJardine, and Muhan Zhang, and to Administrative Science Quarterly, published by SAGE Publications, for advancing such rigorous and timely scholarship in one of the world’s most prestigious FT50 journals. 🙏📖If you love diving into cutting-edge research like this, subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher. 🎧📺We are also available on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast, so you can take serious scholarship wherever you go.Until next time, here is the question we leave you with:When leaders look out at unrest in their communities, are they seeing chaos… or are they seeing a mirror? 🔍✨

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:19:29Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:41:53Danish Podcast Starts at 01:00:24ReferenceMitchell, A., & Vught, J.V. (2024). Videogame Formalism: On Form, Aesthetic Experience and Methodology (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789463720663Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherConnect on linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome back to Revise and Resubmit, and welcome to our episode series, “Weekend Book Review” 🎙️📚I want to start with a small confession. Most of us do not enter a videogame the way we enter a novel or a museum. We enter with momentum. With habit. With thumbs already rehearsing the next move. And then, every once in a while, a game interrupts us. It makes the familiar feel strange again. It asks us to look, not just win. 👀🕹️That interruption is the heartbeat of Videogame Formalism: On Form, Aesthetic Experience and Methodology by Alex Mitchell and Jasper van Vught, published by Routledge in 2024, with the ebook arriving on 10 November 2025. This is a book that tries to rescue “formalism” from becoming a vague, everything-and-nothing label in game studies. Instead of treating formalism like a catch-all, Mitchell and van Vught trace its history and its seriousness, and then bring it home to games with a kind of patient clarity that feels rare. 🧠✨Mitchell teaches at the National University of Singapore, where his work circles defamiliarization in gameplay, the pull of replaying story-heavy games, authoring tools, and collaborative storytelling. He is also a founding member of ARDIN, which tells you something about how committed he is to the craft and community of interactive narrative. Van Vught is an assistant professor at Utrecht University, working at the intersection of methods and teaching, wrestling with what it means to study games as texts and how to help students learn to see what games are doing. Together, they read like two people who love games enough to slow them down. 🎮📝Their central idea is deceptively simple: games create aesthetic experience through form, through “poetic devices” that make forms difficult. Think jump cuts. Unconventional dialogue. A sudden shift in control. A break in the rhythm that jolts you awake. They move through titles like Kentucky Route Zero, Paratopic, and Breath of the Wild to show how these disruptions do not just decorate play, they reorganize perception. And the methodological anchor here is what they call “the dominant,” the organizing principle that guides what the critic should pay attention to, so analysis does not dissolve into vibe or trivia. 🔍🎯So today, as we step into this Weekend Book Review, I want to sit with a question the book keeps placing gently in my lap: when a game makes you stumble, when it deliberately strains your habits and rewires your attention, what exactly is it teaching you to notice about your own life outside the screen? 🌍➡️🕹️❓My thanks to Alex Mitchell and Jasper van Vught, and to Routledge, for making this work available. If you enjoy these reviews, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and subscribe to the YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” ✅📌 This show is also available on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast 🎧🍎

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:18:09Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:38:04Danish Podcast Starts at 00:58:42ReferenceAckoff, R. L. (1967). Management Misinformation Systems. Management Science, 14(4), B-147-B-156. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.b147‌Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherConnect on linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/🎙️ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and this is our episode series: Weekend Classics.There are papers that arrive like polite visitors. They take a seat, wait their turn, and say what they came to say. And then there are papers that walk in, look around your office, glance at the dashboards, the weekly reports, the glowing inbox, and gently ask, “Are you sure all this is helping you think?”I remember the first time I really noticed that peculiar modern ache: the feeling of being informed but not enlightened. Like my brain had become a loading bar. Like I could quote metrics all day and still not answer the simplest question, which is what should we do next.That is where Russell L. Ackoff meets us, back in December 19671967, in Management Science (yes, the FT50-listed one), with a title that still stings: “Management misinformation systems.” Not information systems. Misinformation systems. 😬Ackoff does something brave and oddly tender. He names five assumptions that designers and organizations keep making, like bedtime stories we tell ourselves: that managers lack relevant information, that they want what they need, that more information improves decisions, that more communication improves performance, and that managers do not need to understand the system, only operate it. 📠➡️🧠But the twist is this: Ackoff is not really accusing managers of ignorance. He is accusing systems of being noisy. He suggests the real disease is not scarcity. It is overload. It is the flood of data that feels productive while quietly postponing understanding. 📊🌊And then he offers a way out, not by worshipping better reports, but by embedding the information system inside a broader management control system, something that filters, condenses, adapts, and stays honest about how decisions actually get made. In other words, less trivia, more truth. 🔍✨Before we dive in, a quick favor from me to you and from you to the show: please subscribe to the podcast channel on Spotify, and also on YouTube at Weekend Researcher. ✅ And yes, you can find this show on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast too. 🎧📌And of course, thank you to Russell L. Ackoff and to INFORMS for publishing this classic.So here is what I cannot stop wondering as we open this Weekend Classic: if your organization had half the data tomorrow, what would you finally be able to see clearly for the first time? ❓

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:01Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:32:35Danish Podcast Starts at 00:46:31ReferenceLomellini, G. (2026), Joyful Scholarship: Reclaiming Pleasure to Inspire Change in Academia. J. Manage. Stud.. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70088‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome into Revise and Resubmit 🎙️📚, the little corner of your week where the footnotes breathe, the arguments have a pulse, and the people behind the PDFs finally get to be seen.Tonight, I want to start with a feeling most of us learned to hide the moment we entered academia. Not fear. Not ambition. Not even impostor syndrome. I mean joy. The kind that arrives when an idea clicks, when a sentence sings, when a conversation with a text leaves you slightly undone in the best possible way ✨🧠.Because somewhere along the way, many of us were trained to treat our work like a factory line. We collect “achievement coupons” 🧾🏁. We trade curiosity for compliance. We polish our arguments until they are spotless and strangely unlived in, like a guest room no one is allowed to sleep in. And we tell ourselves this is what seriousness looks like.That is why today’s featured piece feels like a hand on the shoulder and a window thrown open 🌬️📖. We’re discussing “Joyful Scholarship: Reclaiming Pleasure to Inspire Change in Academia” by Gabriel Lomellini, published online on 16 February 2026 in the Journal of Management Studies, a truly prestigious FT50 journal 🏛️✅.Lomellini reflects on the manufacture of joyless scholarship, that quiet deal where we give up pleasure in exchange for legitimacy. Then he flips the script. He argues that pleasure is not a distraction from good research. It is a compass 🧭. For young scholars, it helps you find your voice under all those competing pressures. Collectively, it can build belonging, the kind that forms when people stop performing brilliance and start practicing authenticity 🤝💛. Institutionally, it offers Deans and journal editors a path toward a more inclusive academy, not by adding another metric, but by restoring the human story behind discovery 📌🌱.And maybe the most radical thing here is how practical the hope feels. Not utopian. Not naive. More like a “positive snowball effect” rolling forward, gathering courage, community, and better norms as it goes ❄️➡️🌍.If this episode resonates, subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify 🎧 and find us on YouTube at Weekend Researcher 📺🔔. You can also listen on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast 🍎🎙️, because joy should be easy to access.And before we begin, heartfelt thanks to Gabriel Lomellini, and to the publisher of the article, the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 🙏📘So here’s the question I want to leave hanging in the doorway, just long enough for you to feel it: if pleasure is not the enemy of rigor, what kind of scholarship might you dare to write when you stop apologizing for what makes you feel alive? 🤔✨

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:21:46Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:39:32Danish Podcast Starts at 00:53:35ReferenceLiat Hadar, Yael Steinhart, Gil Appel, Yaniv Shani, The Effect of Online Cart Composition on Cart Abandonment, Journal of Consumer Research, 2026; https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucag002‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, the show where serious research meets real life, and where a footnote can quietly explain a feeling you have never fully named. 🎙️📚Picture the modern confession booth: it is not a church, it is a checkout page. Your cursor hovers. The total stares back. Your cart is full, but your certainty is not. A skincare “treat,” a novel you do not have time to read, noise-cancelling headphones you have already emotionally unpacked, and somewhere in there, almost as an alibi, toothpaste. You tell yourself you are just browsing. You tell yourself you will come back. Then you do what millions of people do every day. You vanish. 🛒👀💨Today’s episode takes that small disappearance seriously, with a brand-new paper that treats cart abandonment not as a shrug, but as a story with a motive. The article is titled “The Effect of Online Cart Composition on Cart Abandonment,” by Liat Hadar, Yael Steinhart, Gil Appel, and Yaniv Shani, published online on 04 February 2026 in the Journal of Consumer Research, an FT50 journal, meaning it sits in that rarefied top tier of business scholarship that helps define what the field even is. 🏛️✨Their idea is deceptively simple, and it lands with a thud of recognition: it is not only what you put in the cart, it is the mix. When the cart tilts toward hedonic items, the pleasure stuff, the fun stuff, the “this is so me” stuff, the cart starts to feel more indulgent overall. And that perception carries a quiet companion: guilt. Not always dramatic guilt, sometimes just a thin film of self-reproach. The kind that whispers, “Do you really need this?” and somehow turns “Add to cart” into “Exit tab.” 😅🍫🧾What makes this research sing is the evidence. The authors bring in two large-scale field datasets and four controlled experiments, and they keep finding the same pattern. More hedonics relative to utilitarian items increases perceived hedonism, which increases guilt, which increases abandonment. And then comes the practical twist, the kind managers love and scholars respect: recommendation systems can intervene. If platforms nudge the cart with utilitarian suggestions, the cart’s overall meaning shifts. Less guilty. More justifiable. More likely to convert. 🤖🧠✅If you love episodes that connect human emotion to the architecture of digital life, you’re in the right place. Subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and also catch us on the YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher.” We’re available on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast too, so you can listen wherever your life actually happens. 🔔🎧📺🍎And as we step into this episode, ask yourself: the next time you abandon a cart, are you really changing your mind, or are you trying to escape the person your cart says you are? 🤔🛍️Thanks to the authors, Liat Hadar, Yael Steinhart, Gil Appel, and Yaniv Shani, and thank you to Oxford University Press for publishing this work in the Journal of Consumer Research.

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast starts at 00:18:42Hindi Podcast starts at 00:33:27Danish Podcast starts at 00:47:55ReferenceLibgober, J., Michaeli, B., & Wiedman, E. (2025). With a grain of salt: Investor reactions to uncertain news and (Non)disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 101802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2025.101802‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/🎙️ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit.There is a particular tension in the modern world that we have all felt. It is the moment when you hear something hopeful, something that sounds like good news, and yet it arrives with a faint static in the background. You want to believe it. But you cannot quite tell if it is truth, or wishful thinking dressed up as information. 📡🧠Today’s episode lives in that static. We are talking about a paper with a title that feels like a piece of everyday advice and a quiet warning at the same time. With a Grain of Salt: Investor Reactions to Uncertain News and (Non)disclosure. Written by Libgober, J., Michaeli, B., and Wiedman, E., and published online in February 2026 in Volume 81, Issue 1 of the Journal of Accounting and Economics. 📄🔍And let’s pause on that journal for a second. The Journal of Accounting and Economics is not just respected. It is prestigious, and it sits on the FT50 list, which means it is part of the small, rare set of journals that shape what the field treats as serious knowledge. 🏛️🏆The paper asks what happens when outside news arrives with uncertain precision. Think social media chatter, analyst notes, headlines that sound confident but are not necessarily accurate. In theory, good news should lift a stock. In life, good news sometimes makes us suspicious, especially when the person who should speak stays quiet. 🤐📉That is the heart of this research. The authors show that when management does not disclose, investors often interpret even positive external news as unlikely to be precise. They take it with a grain of salt. That skepticism does something strange to prices. Better news can paradoxically lead to lower valuation, because investors start to believe that silence is covering up unfavorable private information. 🧂👀The market, in their model, becomes a place where reactions are not neat and linear. Prices can be nonmonotonic, swinging in counterintuitive ways, and the reaction is asymmetric. Bad news hits harder, good news gets doubted. And the presence of these outside information sources can even discourage firms from sharing their own private information, especially in high value industries, because disclosure is not just truth-telling. It is timing, strategy, and risk. ⏳📣If you love episodes where research explains the world you actually live in, make sure you subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify. And if you want the visuals and the deeper dives, subscribe to the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher. You can also find this show on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts. 🎧📺📲And a sincere thank you to Libgober, Michaeli, and Wiedman for this compelling work, and to Elsevier for publishing it in the Journal of Accounting and Economics, one of the truly elite FT50 journals. 🙏📚Now here is the question I cannot shake. If investors can learn to distrust good news simply because the people in charge stay silent, then in a world flooded with uncertain information, what does a company have to do to make its silence feel like restraint instead of guilt? ❓🕯️

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast starts at 00:18:59Hindi Podcast starts at 00:36:04Danish Podcast starts at 00:51:15ReferenceHsiao, A. (2026), Coordination and Commitment in International Climate Action: Evidence From Palm Oil. Econometrica, 94: 1-33. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA20608More details on Author Page https://allanhsiao.com/‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️🌍There is a particular kind of sadness in the way the world shrugs. Not at the catastrophe itself, but at the paperwork around it. Forests vanish, skies thicken, coastlines redraw themselves, and somewhere a committee meets, nods gravely, and postpones. Meanwhile, the everyday products that pass through our hands keep their promises. Smooth. Convenient. Affordable. Quietly connected to places we will never see. 🛒🌿Palm oil is one of those connections. It lives inside modern life like a hidden ingredient, and behind it sits a hard truth: when local rules are weak, the damage does not stay local. It travels. It accumulates. It becomes everyone’s weather. ☁️🔥Today’s episode follows a piece of research that refuses the shrug. It asks a practical question with moral weight: if a country cannot, or will not, police its own environmental harm, can the rest of the world use trade to change the outcome? 📦⚖️We are talking about “Coordination and Commitment in International Climate Action: Evidence From Palm Oil” by Allan Hsiao, published online in January 2026 in Econometrica (Volume 94, Issue 1). This is a prestigious FT50 journal, and the paper is published by The Econometric Society and Wiley. 🏛️📚Hsiao builds a dynamic empirical framework that treats policy not as a slogan but as a lever you can actually measure. Then he applies it to palm oil, a major driver of deforestation and carbon emissions. The numbers are the kind that make you sit up straighter. Relative to business as usual, a 50%50% domestic production tax is associated with about 7.47.4 gigatons less CO2CO2 from 19881988 to 20162016, roughly 0.260.26 gigatons per year. Coordinated, committed import tariffs of similar magnitude reduce emissions by 5.45.4 gigatons over the same period. 🌳➡️📉But the heart of the story is not just “tariffs work.” It is the conditional clause the world keeps trying to avoid. Without coordination and without commitment, trade penalties do less, because the market is clever and leakage is real. Production shifts. The harm relocates. The conscience feels cleaner while the atmosphere stays the same. 🧭🕳️And then comes the twist that feels almost like hope dressed as bureaucracy: the cost of these coordinated tariffs is about $15 per ton of CO2, even after accounting for transfers that acknowledge the welfare losses of producing countries. The paper also explores alternatives like export taxes and a carbon border adjustment mechanism that can nudge producing nations toward stronger domestic protections, not by scolding, but by aligning incentives. 💸🌐If you want more research stories told with care and clarity, subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and subscribe to the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher. You can also listen on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast. 🔔🎧🎥📲And heartfelt thanks to Allan Hsiao, and to the publisher, The Econometric Society and Wiley, for this work in Econometrica, a truly prestigious FT50-listed journal. 🙏📖Curious question to carry into the episode: if the world can price carbon at the border, can it also learn to price what it usually calls “someone else’s problem,” and finally commit long enough for the forest to notice? 🤔🌿

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast starts at 00:21:04Hindi Podcast starts at 00:36:17Danish Podcast starts at 00:46:22ReferenceMoutusy Maity, Roy, N., Majumder, D., & Chakravarty, P. (2024). Revisiting the Received Image of Machiavelli in Business Ethics Through a Close Reading of The Prince and Discourses. J Bus Ethics 191, 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05481-2‌Youtube Channel⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠Connect over linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨Some names stop being names. They become shortcuts. You say them and the room fills with an instant weather system of meaning. “Machiavelli” is one of those names. 🌩️📌 It shows up in office hallways and boardroom jokes, in quiet accusations and loud certainty, as if a single man, writing in a different century, can explain the little betrayals and big bargains of modern work.But here is the human problem with shortcuts. They save time, and they steal truth. Because leadership is rarely a clean story about angels and villains. It is more often a story about ordinary people trying to keep something from falling apart, choosing between two imperfect doors, hoping the one they open does not shut on someone else’s fingers. 🚪🤝Today’s episode takes that familiar, shadowy image of Machiavelli and asks whether we have been staring at the silhouette and calling it the whole person. 👤🔍We are diving into a remarkable paper: “Revisiting the Received Image of Machiavelli in Business Ethics Through a Close Reading of The Prince and Discourses” by Moutusy Maity, Nandita Roy, Doyeeta Majumder, and Prasanta Chakravarty, published in the Journal of Business Ethics, a prestigious FT50 journal. It appears in Volume 191, pages 231–252 (2024). 🏛️📚What the authors do is quietly radical. First, they step back and watch the academic crowd. With bibliometric and network analysis across 355 articles, they show how much of management scholarship keeps returning to the same narrow corridor: the Machiavelli of cunning, manipulation, and the so-called “dark triad.” 🧠🕳️ Then they reopen a door many readers leave closed. They bring in The Discourses alongside The Prince, and suddenly the moral landscape gets wider, stranger, and more usable.Instead of treating contradictions as proof of corruption, the paper treats them as signals. As if Machiavelli is not handing you a license to be ruthless, but a set of tensions you must learn to hold. Flexibility and history. Negotiation and force. Individual will and collective stability. The authors even propose a “virtù ethics” model that reframes leadership as a practical craft, bounded by context, accountable to consequences, and attentive to participation rather than pure performance. ⚖️🛠️🌍So before we begin, sit with this: if we stopped using “Machiavellian” as an insult and started reading it as a complicated mirror, what would it show us about our own workplaces, and the stories we tell ourselves to sleep at night? If you are enjoying these deep, humane conversations with research at the center, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and subscribe to the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher too. You can also find the show on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast. 🔔🎧🎥📲And sincere thanks to the authors, Moutusy Maity, Nandita Roy, Doyeeta Majumder, and Prasanta Chakravarty, and to the publisher, Springer Nature, for bringing this work to the world through the Journal of Business Ethics, an FT50-listed journal. 🙏📖✨Curious question to carry into the episode: what if the real ethical test of leadership is not choosing the “right” side, but learning exactly when a tension must be balanced, and when it must be refused? 🤔⚖️

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:18:36Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:32:18Danish Podcast Starts at 00:45:58ReferenceThe Darjeeling Distinction: Labor and Justice on Fair-Trade Tea Plantations in India: by Sarah Besky, Oakland, CA, University of California Press, 2013, 264 pp., ISBN: 9780520277397. https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-darjeeling-distinction/paper‌Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherConnect on linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/🎙️ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and this is our episode series, Weekend Classics.I have a book in my hands tonight that carries a familiar kind of magic, the sort that sells easily. Say “Darjeeling” and people hear mist, altitude, a slow pour, a bright cup, and a price tag that whispers luxury. But when you sit with The Darjeeling Distinction: Labor and Justice on Fair-Trade Tea Plantations in India, you start to notice the other sound beneath the romance. You hear work. You hear history. You hear the stubborn question of who gets called “fair” when the world is thirsty. 🍃☕Sarah Besky does not write from a distance. She is an anthropologist of work, now at Cornell’s ILR School, and her scholarship has that rare discipline of actually looking, closely, at how value gets made. Not just in markets, but in bodies. In weather. In everyday decisions that never get a label. Through ethnographic and historical attention, she walks us into plantation life in Darjeeling and stays long enough to show what “fair-trade” means when it lands on a large-scale plantation with colonial roots that never really stopped shaping the present. 📚🔍In these pages, the famous “taste of place” is not just a marketing story wrapped in a Geographical Indication seal or a Fair Trade logo. It becomes a contested portrait. We meet tea workers, especially women pluckers whose manual labor is often romanticized into something gentle and picturesque, even as wages, land, and dignity remain under pressure. And all of it unfolds alongside the long political argument for Gorkhaland, a demand for autonomy that keeps reminding us that justice is not only economic. It is also historical, environmental, and unapologetically political. ⛰️✊What I love about Besky’s thinking is that she refuses the neat ending. She shows how fairness can become a performance, how “ethical” systems can protect brands more reliably than they protect people, and how the plantation continues to be reinvented for twenty-first-century consumers without necessarily reinventing the everyday life of those who keep the tea moving from leaf to legend. 🌿🧾Before we get into this review, a quick ask. If you like bookish field-notes like this, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, and also on YouTube at Weekend Researcher. You can also find this channel on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast. 🎧📺And with gratitude, thanks to Sarah Besky, and to the University of California Press, for a book that turns a familiar cup into an unfamiliar mirror. 🙏📖Here’s what I cannot stop wondering as we begin. If the world can learn to pay extra for a story of fairness, why does it still struggle to pay, in the most ordinary way, for the people who make that story possible? 🤔🍵