Publication records

How performance is perceived and attributed has important implications for strategizing. Much research in the cognitive and social sciences suggests that people tend to mistake luck for skill in evaluations and ignore how future performances regress to the mean. We argue that these systematic mistakes can be translated into an alternative source of profit: informed strategists can take advantage of others’ misattributions of luck by exploiting the false expectations and mispricing in strategic factor markets. We also discuss the learning and interdependency barriers that protect, and thus predict the attractiveness of, a behavioral opportunity and suggest approaches to help overcome these behavioral barriers.

With permission of the Academy of Management

Digital innovation can be extremely beneficial to citizens. However, current digital strategies of governments are not strong enough to ensure that digital innovation is not a threat to society – but, only a benefit. Digital innovation will only be effective if governments adopt strong digital strategies. Key issues are a less-specific digital regulation, a greater government’s investment in digital infrastructures, a higher flexibility for local governments, and a strengthening of digital policy leadership within governments.

We consider a principal repeatedly allocating a single resource in each period to one of multiple agents, whose values are private, without relying on monetary payments over an infinite horizon with discounting. We design a dynamic mechanism without monetary transfers, which induces agents to report their values truthfully in each period via promises/threats of future favorable/unfavorable allocations. We show that our mechanism asymptotically achieves the first-best efficient allocation (the welfare-maximizing allocation as if values are public) as agents become more patient and provide sharp characterizations of convergence rates to first best as a function of the discount factor. In particular, in the case of two agents we prove that the convergence rate of our mechanism is optimal, i.e., no other mechanism can converge faster to first best.

Copyright © 2019, INFORMS

Advertising is central to creating brand meaning by endowing brands with symbolic values and embedding them within their broader sociocultural context. This study analyzes how the symbolic meaning of luxury brands is constructed in print advertisements. In particular, the study shows how brand communications of luxury brands systematically differ from those of premium and mass-market brands. Through a comparative analysis of thematic and formal characteristics of 208 print advertising campaigns consisting of about 1,700 individual ads from the primary advertising campaigns of four luxury brands, four premium brands, and four mass-market brands, this study identifies three distinguishing factors of luxury brand communication: enrichment, distancing, and abstraction. First, luxury brand advertising enriches the communication content by using more complex campaign templates that make more frequent use of symbolism, rhetorical structures, and storytelling. Second, luxury brand advertising systematically uses distancing techniques, such as temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical distancing. Third, luxury brand ads use higher-level discourses that allow for different interpretations of brand advertisements. Therefore, this study provides insights into the construction of brand identity in the luxury field, as well as the broader sociocultural construction of luxury and the evolution of its core symbolic constituencies.

China, Europe, and the United States are competing over whose image will be most reflected in rules and normst hat define digital markets. Regulatory measures such as Europe’s GDPR and China’s Cybersecurity Law combine privacy, security, and safety regulation. Driving factors are security policy as well as industry and trade policy. With China pulling into the pole position in the digital technology race, it is time for the United States and Europe to forge a digital governance alliance

In April 1520, Gaspar de Quesada and other Spanish Captains mutinied against their Portuguese admiral Ferdinand Magellan. After being retired by the Portuguese King, Magellan approached the Spanish King, Charles I, claiming to know a passage through the newly found continent to South-East-Asia. The king promised Magellan significant personal gain and full authority over an armada of five ships. When leaving Spain in 1519, Magellan did not reveal the details of his plans to the mostly Spanish captains of the other ships, but rather ordered them to just follow his boat. A minor signal of disobedience by Magellan’s deputy was met with immediate force and the expedition continued until Magellan ordered to stay in a natural harbor during Winter season and drastically rationed supplies. The case study describes a meeting between the Spanish Captains under the command of Gaspar de Quesada during which they debate their options, namely a mutiny to get control of the largest ship, San Antonio.
Using a historical case and setting, the case allows to discuss multiple issues of contemporary interest in the domains of leadership and (business) ethics, namely loyalty, authority, power, (dis-)obedience, psychological contracts (and their violations), organizational success, and triple bottom line thinking.

The overall learning objectives include discussing and understanding:

• the role of power and authority for leadership behaviors—including their respective benefits and potential drawbacks,


• the particular leadership challenges and behaviors when acting in VUCA settings, and


• the importance and limitations of loyalty, obedience and followership—including the potential need to demonstrate (or react to) different forms of disobedience (incl. mutiny).

In particular, the immediate issues that can be addressed by using the case are:

• Mutiny at the workplace:


• As a subordinate: When, why and how to do it?


• As a superior: How to react to it?


• (Dis-)obedience and authority (in professional settings)

The subsequent case discussion will then also allow addressing the following underlying issues:

• Authority and power


• Achieving follower buy-in


• Leadership in a VUCA world


• Loyalty (esp. from a middle-management perspective)


• Giving voice to values


• Psychological contract violations

Dependent upon the educational objectives of the instructor, the case can also be used to address the following additional/alternative underlying issues:

• Triple bottom line


• Stakeholder management


• Cross-cultural differences


• Law versus ethics


• Normative ethical theories

The Commission “‘Competition Law 4.0’” was set up by the German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy with the task to draw up recommendations for the further development of EU competition law in the light of the digital economy. The final report with 22 recommendations was handed over in September 2019.
The commission finds that the practical and actual power of consumers to dispose of their own data must be improved, clear rules of conduct for dominant platforms must be introduced, legal certainty for cooperation in the digital sector must be enhanced, and the institutional linkage between competition law and other digital regulation must be strengthened.

We build a framework where firm size is a source of market power in a frictional labor market. The key mechanism is that a granular employer can eliminate its own vacancies from a worker’s outside option in the wage bargain. Hence, a granular employer does not compete with itself for workers. We derive a structural mapping from a microfounded concentration index to average wages. Using the framework in Austrian micro-data, we find that granular market power depresses wages by 9-13 percent and can explain 40 percent of the observed decline in the labor share from 1997 to 2015. Merging the two largest firms in every labor market depresses market-wide wages by six percent.

This working paper was also published in the IZA Institute of Labour Economics discussion paper series: https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/12574