Organizational Behavior · UNC Kenan-Flagler

Good intentions are cheap. Acting on them is hard.

Most managers want to listen, treat people fairly, and support equity, and still fall short. I study why, and what organizations can change so that people act on the intentions they already have.

About

I'm an organizational behavior scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Kenan-Flagler Business School, where I study why good intentions so often fail to become good outcomes.

Before academia I spent four years in the Israeli Air Force and three practicing law in Israel. I earned my Ph.D. at the University of Maryland, was a postdoctoral scholar at New York University's Stern School of Business, and joined the faculty in 2018. My work appears in Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (OBHDP), and Personnel Psychology. I've written about this work for managers in Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, and the Wall Street Journal, and other authors have discussed it in popular books. I'm an Associate Editor at OBHDP.

Elad Sherf speaking on a panel.
Research

Barriers between good intentions and action.

Stream 01

Voice & Feedback

Why managers resist learning from the people around them, and why employees stay silent even when they have something worth saying.

Explore this stream →
Stream 02

Fairness & Justice

Why managers who mean to be fair still treat people unfairly, and why employees can reach opposite judgments of the same decision.

Explore this stream →
Stream 03

Allyship at Work

Why people hold back from supporting colleagues who face disadvantage, and which kinds of support are likely to help.

Explore this stream →
Stream 01

Voice & Feedback

Most managers know they should ask for input. Many still don't, or dismiss what they hear when they do. Speaking up and staying silent are separate behaviors with separate causes, so giving employees more chances to speak does not necessarily reduce what they withhold.

Recent publications See all publications →

Sherf, Lee & McElroy · 2026 · Academy of Management Annals

Between moving toward and moving away, people often do a third thing.

A manager who learns a senior executive will attend her next update might take a bold risk, let a colleague present, or prepare carefully to balance her ambition against the executive's preferences. That third response reflects inhibition, a separate system that responds to conflicting goals. Reviewing 268 organizational papers, we document that researchers often omit inhibition or treat it as avoidance, and assume approach is good while avoidance and inhibition are bad. We integrate the two theories the field draws on and apply the result to power, voice and silence, and proactivity.

Anseel & Sherf · 2025 · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Twenty-five years of feedback research, and the findings still contradict each other.

Researchers use one word, feedback, for at least six different things: a one-time rating, an ongoing conversation, a 360 program, information available while you work. Because the underlying assumptions differ, so do the results, which is why a simple rule like "lead with the positive" works in one line of research and fails in another.

Sherf, Croitoru & McElroy · 2024 · Personnel Psychology

Asking for feedback and watching for it are not the same behavior.

Across roughly 390 samples, people who ask directly and people who quietly observe show different patterns. Worrying about looking bad is associated with less direct asking but not with less observing, and direct asking is associated with better job performance while observing is not.

Sherf, Parke & Isaakyan · 2021 · Academy of Management Journal

Speaking up and staying silent are not opposites.

Across a meta-analysis and a six-month panel study, how often people speak up and how often they stay silent are only weakly related. Believing your input will change something mostly predicts speaking up, feeling safe mostly predicts not staying silent, and burnout is associated with silence rather than with a lack of voice.

Sherf & Morrison · 2020 · Journal of Applied Psychology

Confidence reduces feedback seeking only under one condition.

Across five studies, self-efficacy had no overall relationship with how much people sought feedback. The negative relationship appeared only among those low in perspective taking, who saw less value in what others could tell them, and prompting people to consider the other person's point of view removed it.

Stream 02

Fairness & Justice

Fairness predicts how employees feel and behave, yet employees still report unfair treatment. Managers who want to be fair have limited time and attention, and they prioritize technical tasks over fairness ones as their workload rises. Fairness is also a judgment, so observers can see the same act as fair or unfair depending on what they believe about the motive behind it.

Recent publications See all publications →

Lee, Badura, Baker & Sherf · 2024 · Journal of Applied Psychology

Believing the organization lets things slide predicts misconduct better than believing you personally will.

We build and validate measures of two beliefs: that you will not be punished for wrongdoing, and that your organization does not punish anyone's. Across two samples, the second was the more consistent correlate of misconduct, and employees reported it more strongly under leaders focused narrowly on results.

Tedder-King & Sherf · 2024 · Academy of Management Journal

Who sees a correction for bias as fair.

Observers judged a manager who adjusted a performance rating to account for structural sexism. Whether they called that fair depended mainly on how strongly they already believed that discrimination and unequal starting points explain who succeeds, and much less on their belief in individual effort. In one study, describing the barrier as a physical feature of the job rather than as biased judgment made the adjustment look fairer to people with weaker structural beliefs.

★ 2025 Saroj Parasuraman Award

To, Sherf & Kouchaki · 2024 · Academy of Management Journal

How much inequity do you even see?

Employees with more supervisory responsibility report somewhat less gender and racial inequity in their own workplace, and identifying with the organization accounts for much of that difference. It disappears when the question asks about other workplaces, and in one experiment it disappeared once managers recalled a specific incident of bias they had witnessed.

Li, Sherf & Tangirala · 2023 · Organization Science

Two kinds of pay fairness support two kinds of relearning.

After a manufacturer overhauled how 115 production teams worked, teams whose members saw pay as matching individual contribution rebuilt individual skills faster, and teams whose members saw pay as shared equally rebuilt coordination faster. Individual skill mattered for performance in the first month, coordination two months later, and the two perceptions can be present at the same time.

Stream 03

Allyship at Work

Many employees endorse diversity efforts in principle, yet fewer take part in them. Whether people act, and whether others are persuaded when they do, depends in part on whether they see themselves, and are seen by others, as legitimate spokespersons for the issue. Allyship can help colleagues who face disadvantage by reducing the sources of that disadvantage or by signaling that they are valued. My coauthors and I propose that the first path generally has stronger and longer-lasting effects.

Recent publications See all publications →

Tedder-King, Prengler & Sherf · 2025 · Journal of Applied Psychology

Allyship may work through two paths, and research has mostly studied one of them.

This review of 58 articles separates allyship that reduces an actual source of disadvantage from allyship that signals to colleagues that they are valued and safe. The same act can do one, both, or neither, and we argue that fewer studies have examined the first path.

★ Monograph★ Editor's Choice★ 2026 Saroj Parasuraman Award

Hussain, Tangirala & Sherf · 2023 · Academy of Management Journal

Who raises a gender-equity issue changes how managers judge it.

In three experiments, including one with managers responding to a proposal from their own colleagues, evaluators judged all-male coalitions as having less standing to raise gender equity. They also judged the issue as less important to the business when women raised it alone than when a mixed-gender coalition raised it. Mixed-gender coalitions drew neither penalty, though their advantage appeared through those two judgments rather than as a direct increase in support.

Sherf, Tangirala & Weber · 2017 · Organization Science

Men take part less in gender-parity efforts because they feel it is not their place.

Men reported less psychological standing than women on gender-parity initiatives, meaning a weaker sense that it was their place to speak up or take part, and that gap helped explain why they participated less. Men's standing was lower on gender parity but not on other issues. When a request stressed that the issue affected every employee and that both men and women should take part, the gender gap in volunteering closed.

News

Beyond the journals

Where I've written about my work for practitioners, and where others have discussed it.

Writing for practitioners

Written about my work

Anthony Klotz · Viking, 2026 Jolted: Why We Quit, When to Stay, and Why It Matters

Klotz discusses my workload and fairness research, and why managers whose organizations reward technical work miss the signs that employees feel treated unfairly.

Colleen Ammerman & Boris Groysberg · Harvard Business Review Press, 2021 Glass Half-Broken: Shattering the Barriers That Still Hold Women Back at Work

Ammerman and Groysberg discuss my psychological standing research on why men often believe it is not their place to speak up about gender equity at work.

Harvard Business Review · 2017 Lots of Men Are Gender-Equality Allies in Private. Why Not in Public?

David G. Smith and W. Brad Johnson draw on my psychological standing research to explain why men who support gender equity stay quiet about it at work.

Read ↗

Podcasts

Teaching

I teach two subjects: how to lead and manage teams, and how to think critically and creatively.

Leading and Managing Teams

The interpersonal processes and structural features that shape how teams perform: how groups make decisions, handle conflict, and distribute influence, and what leaders and members can do to work with them well. The premise is that managing teams is a skill you build through practice, not a talent you're born with.

Thinking Critically and Creatively

Creativity as a process you can learn and improve, not a trait reserved for a few. Drawing on cognitive and organizational psychology, it builds the habits to recognize when a problem needs creative thinking, to change how you approach it, and to foster creativity in a group, complementing analytical and domain expertise rather than replacing it.

Each fall I also teach one of two doctoral seminars, on dependent variables or on interpersonal processes in organizational behavior, and I teach Online MBA sessions on teams and creativity and custom executive education programs.

★ Weatherspoon Award for Excellence in Ph.D. Teaching, 2025 · MBA All-Star Teaching Award, 2022

Elad Sherf at a whiteboard, teaching.