Publication database

We provide a canonical and tractable model of a trade platform enabling buyers and sellers to transact. The platform charges a percentage fee on third-party product sales and decides whether to be "hybrid", like Amazon, by selling its own product. It thereby controls the number of differentiated products (variety) it hosts and their prices. Using the mixed market demand system, we capture interactions between monopolistically competitive sellers and a sizeable platform product. Using long-run aggregative games with free entry, we endogenize seller participation through an aggregate variable manipulated by the platform's fee. We show that a higher quality (or lower cost) of the platform's product increases its market share and the seller fee, and lowers consumer surplus. Banning hybrid mode benefits consumers. The hybrid platform might favor its product and debase third-party products if the own product advantage is sufficiently high. We also provide some tax policy implications.

© 2024 The Author(s). The RAND Journal of Economics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The RAND Corporation.

In this paper, we explore how to uncover an adverse issue that may occur in organizations with the capability to evade detection. To that end, we formalize the problem of designing efficient auditing and remedial strategies as a dynamic mechanism design model. In this setup, a principal seeks to uncover and remedy an issue that occurs to an agent at a random point in time and that harms the principal if not addressed promptly. Only the agent observes the issue’s occurrence, but the principal may uncover it by auditing the agent at a cost. The agent, however, can exert effort to reduce the audit’s effectiveness in discovering the issue. We first establish that this setup reduces to the optimal stochastic control of a piecewise deterministic Markov process. The analysis of this process reveals that the principal should implement a dynamic cyclic auditing and remedial cost-sharing mechanism, which we characterize in closed form. Importantly, we find that the principal should randomly audit the agent unless the agent’s evasion capacity is not very effective, and the agent cannot afford to self-correct the issue. In this latter case, the principal should follow predetermined audit schedules.

© 2024, INFORMS

Alexander and Lorenzo were at a crossroads with their biotech startup, PhagoMed. They had left high-profile positions at Boston Consulting Group (BCG) three years earlier, driven by a bold vision to tackle the global crisis of antibiotic resistance using phages, viruses with the remarkable ability to target specific bacteria. Despite a robust commitment to R&D yielding deeper insights into phage biology, the journey from lab to clinic was frustratingly slow. And with their capital dwindling, they faced the urgent need to reassess their strategic direction and resource allocation.

In any group or organization, conflicts of interest can arise between what serves the collective’s interests and what benefits each individual member (e.g., Evans, Hendron, & Oldroyd, 2015). This tension between the individual and the collective may emerge in the realm of social capital returns (Ibarra, Kilduff & Tsai, 2005). For example, individuals might erode the social capital of the whole community as they strive to maximize their own network benefits. Similarly, the community might prosper at the expense of individuals’ social capital. Although prior research in social networks has suggested the potential dilemmas arising from the juxtaposition of individual and communal social capital, empirical evidence concerning these dilemmas has been limited. Most social network studies concentrate on individual ego networks and their impact on the focal individual, overlooking their influence on the surrounding network community. This symposium presents four lines of research, each highlighting promising frontiers of social network research at the intersection of the individual and the collective. The first paper examines the tensions that arise in bowtie structures as brokers between cohesive groups seek advantage. The paper poses the question as to the relative outcomes for individuals and groups with respect to social capital and creativity. In the second paper, the focus shifts to cross-team social interactions, revealing an unexpected tradeoff. Whereas these interactions are commonly perceived as beneficial for work teams, the paper reveals how they can cause burnout to boundary spanners due to emotional contagion. The third paper investigates how brokers within a competition network are likely to be disadvantaged if their competitors join forces with each other rather than engage in competition with each other. The fourth paper examines the challenges faced by racial and ethnic minorities within social networks. It uncovers a dilemma between individual networking efforts and the collective network structures and dynamics that hinder or facilitate individual success.

With permission of the Academy of Management

There has been a growing impetus to delve deeper into the nuanced complexities of minority experiences in organizational research. This symposium goes beyond traditional gender, racial, and social class research to study minority groups previously understudied and intersections of identities. Our four presentations examine Asian American employees, lower SES females in negotiations, and social class transitioners, and unveil various forms of unique costs faced by these groups, from unacknowledged discrimination and exploitation to missed opportunities of negotiations and cultural mismatch. This symposium hopes to highlight the importance of breaking traditional dichotomies in diversity research and contribute to creating an inclusive workplace for everyone.

With permission of the Academy of Management

This session explores the nuanced role of cognitive diversity in team and organizational performance, focusing on contrasting perspectives and emerging research. Cognitive diversity, defined as variations in thought processes, perceptions, and information processing, is generally perceived as beneficial for team decision-making and organizational value, as supported by studies from McKinsey and Deloitte, amongst others. However, recent literature suggests that its effectiveness is context-dependent. For example, firms with an innovator strategy or those in less competitive environments may benefit less from cognitive diversity. This complexity is further highlighted in startup contexts, where the role of early joiners and non-founding employees becomes significant. Empirical studies, such as those by Sako, Qian, & Verhagen (2021), and theoretical models from the organizational learning literature, propose a reevaluation of decision-making processes and the importance of leveraging knowledge diversity. The session underscores the importance of recognizing cognitive diversity's nuanced impacts, particularly in startups and innovative environments.

With permission of the Academy of Management

The present study examines three widely-held assumptions about negotiation that have never been tested outside the confines of a laboratory: (1) it’s a daily activity, (2) it’s generally unpleasant, and yet (3) it leads to happier lives. Leveraging an app-based experience-sampling methodology, we found that 25% of daily interactions involve negotiation, often resulting in a short-term dip in happiness. However, frequent negotiators reported higher overall happiness, underscoring the long-term benefits of this skill. The most common negotiation activities involved 'reaching an agreement' and ‘making a joint decision’, while formal 'bargaining’ was less frequently used. We found negotiation to be more prevalent in professional interactions than in personal relationships. Additionally, our data revealed no significant gender or age differences in negotiation frequency, challenging traditional stereotypes.

With permission of the Academy of Management