Professors Norman Bishara and Jagadeesh Sivadasan have made significant contributions to influential literature examining the variation in the enforceability of non-compete clauses and their consequences. Their work is an important part of broader literature documenting monopsony power (i.e., the power of employees to set wages leading to a redistribution of surpluses away from workers), worker mobility, and knowledge transfers. In a pioneering paper published in 2010, Bishara created a detailed rating of the non-compete enforceability in all 50 states, building on painstaking work parsing the regulations and case law at the state level. The enforceability index from Bishara's 2010 paper, combined with worker-quarter-level U.S. Census data, was used in a paper by Sivadasan and co-authors to show that higher enforceability is correlated with lower wages and mobility for tech workers.

Bishara and his U-M coauthors also undertook a broad survey of U.S. workers, documenting for the first time the surprising prevalence of the use of non-compete clauses across a range of industries, including for low-wage workers, as well as work showing the chilling effect of noncompetes on employee behavior, even when they are unenforceable. This portfolio of work helped spark a major policy debate about the use and abuse of noncompetes that inspired action from the White House and the research conclusions being cited in the 2023 State of the Union Address, and spurred a report from U.S. Treasury Department, legislative changes from numerous states, and research from a range of think tanks that eventually led to the 2024 final rule from the Federal Trade Commission attempting to ban noncompetes in employment contracts across the country.
 

In 1984, former faculty member Birger Wernerfelt introduced a paradigm shift in business strategy with his paper "A Resource-Based View of the Firm." Prior to this transformative work, the discourse on business strategy was predominantly centered around external market factors and competitive forces. 

Wernerfelt challenged this conventional wisdom by presenting the argument that a firm's internal resources, ranging from tangible assets like machinery to intangible assets like reputation, could be the key to creating a competitive advantage. This theory, known as the Resource-Based View, asserts that for resources to offer a firm sustained competitive advantage, they must be valuable, rare, and difficult to substitute or imitate. 

The RBV has had profound implications and has changed how firms undertake strategic planning by emphasizing the importance of leveraging internal assets for competitive advantage. Wernerfelt's paper has been cited in thousands of academic publications and is now a staple in business school curricula worldwide.

Sensory marketing is a relatively new and growing field of marketing that Professor Aradhna Krishna pioneered in the early 2000s. Krishna saw that there were disparate fields of study on senses, but there was no cohesion between these fields. She brought all these sub-fields together under the umbrella of sensory marketing and organized the first conference on it in 2008. She then wrote two books and dozens of scholarly articles on the subject to make the field grow. And the field did grow both in academia and in practice -- enough for Harvard Business Review to do a lead Ideawatch article on it featuring Krishna as the world's foremost expert on the topic. Krishna has defined "sensory marketing" as marketing that engages the consumers' senses and affects their perception, judgment, and behavior. Krishna continues to publish important, scholarly articles on the topic. She also started the Sensory Marketing Lab at Michigan Ross, which attracts PhD students and post-docs from around the world.

Professor Gretchen Spreitzer received her PhD from Michigan Ross in 1992. Her work on empowerment, stemming from her Michigan Ross dissertation, has set the foundation for a new understanding of the employee experience. Instead of capital that organizations needed to control, empowerment brought forth the idea that employees thrive when they are given the freedom and autonomy to do their work autonomously. This pioneering work ushered in a new era of research and a fundamental shift in how organizations view their relationship with employees.

In 2021, Assistant Professor Andreas Hagemann developed a new econometric methodology that addresses the complexities of clustered data to enhance the accuracy and reliability of empirical work in economics and related fields. Typical examples of clusters are firms, cities, or states. The central challenge is that units within clusters may influence one another or may be influenced by similar environmental factors in ways that cannot be observed. Empirical researchers know that neglecting to account for clusters can yield results where non-existent effects erroneously appear as highly significant. Hagemann's research agenda developed new tools to address this issue in challenging and empirically relevant scenarios. His work has had a substantial impact on econometric theory and empirical practice. For instance, the methodology he developed is now the standard option for clustering in the canonical implementation of quantile regression in the statistical programming language R.

The public corporation in America is vanishing, and more people, from low-income earners to professionals, are doing their work in the so-called “gig economy.” The work of Professors Jerry Davis and Sue Ashford put these two issues on the research agenda of scholarly colleagues. Davis documents the first idea in his book, The Vanishing American Corporation (2016). Although some scholars have suggested that over-regulation might account for this surprising trend, he argues that a more fundamental shift in the economy, enabled by information and communication technologies, was ultimately responsible. By making it cheaper to "buy" rather than "make" inputs (from capital and labor to supplies, manufacturing, and distribution), information and communication technologies have made the parts of an enterprise like a pile of Legos, ready to assemble into a business, scale, and disassemble. This idea explains Nikefication, Uberization, Amazon, and other recent trends in the organization of the U.S. economy, as well as why the same technologies are used differently in different countries, resulting in very different corporate structures. If what Davis says is true, then fewer people will be working in large public corporation settings going forward. This shift may account for the growth in people working independently, some using technologically mediated apps to find and conduct work. Ashford puts the gig economy and gig workers on the agenda of people wanting to understand individuals at work. Her qualitative and quantitative studies identify the challenges faced by those working independently and what they can do to survive and thrive. Challenges include maintaining one’s identity, keeping sufficient income flowing in, staying organized, finding and maintaining work connections, and figuring out how to make working in this manner work over the long run. This research tests a variety of interventions and solicits ideas from individuals working in this manner regarding strategies that make this kind of work-life viable and enlivening.

In 2006, Professor Sue Ashford, associate dean for leadership programming, founded the Ross Leadership Initiative, which was the precursor to the Sanger Leadership Center and one of the first organized leadership programs among business schools worldwide. The initiative was influenced by Ashford's research on learning leadership via experience and Professor Noel Tichy's action-based learning concepts. Suddenly students were not just learning about leadership but were actually engaged in doing it. Prominent among these efforts was the highly influential Leadership Crisis Challenge, which puts students in the hot seat needing to resolve a crisis in the moment. This program was recognized with the Provost's Teaching Innovation Prize in 2011 and remains a prominent and popular program in the school to this day. Later, under the leadership of Professors Scott DeRue and Gretchen Spreitzer, RLI grew and launched new programs that persist today, including Story Lab, the Ross Leaders Academy, and more. In 2015, alum Stephen W. Sanger, MBA '70, and Karen Sanger made a defining gift of $20 million to establish the Sanger Leadership Center. With the Sangers' gift, the Sanger Leadership Center, now under the leadership of Professor Lindy Greer, has created an array of custom programs and workshops and now offers leadership development programs for students across the university.

If people don’t pay much attention to the ads when they watch TV, they can’t possibly think a lot about what the ads are saying. How, then, does advertising have the effects on consumer buying that it does? Showing that emotional responses evoked by the ad play an important role was a major research contribution by Rajeev Batra, Michigan Ross marketing professor. Batra came to U-M in 1989 from Columbia University, where he began this research stream. Over 10 years at MichiganRoss, he grew this research stream to show more clearly how these ad-evoked emotions interacted with the ads’ more rational content, what the different types of ad-evoked emotions were and how they could be measured accurately, and how they shaped consumers’ liking for and perceptions about brands. His co-authored papers on these topics have been cited more than 8,000 times, and he has twice been listed among the most influential scholars in the study of advertising. The methods he developed for measuring the types and effectiveness of emotional ads have also been incorporated into copy-testing systems at multiple ad agencies.

Franchised chains have an outsize influence on the economy: firms involved in a variety of business activities are organized as franchised chains and they employed over 9.6 million workers in the United States in 2017 according to the Census Bureau. Professor Francine Lafontaine's pioneering work on franchising shows that the success of this organizational form across various sectors results from the franchisor and franchisee specializing in the activities they are best suited to. Specifically, the franchisor specializes in creating and supporting the business format and brand, where scale is especially beneficial, and the franchisee optimizes operations locally, where their knowledge and efforts are particularly valuable. Lafontaine's work in this area has informed the choices that franchisors make and the nature of the contracts they use, and also the debate over legislation that aims to address the alleged shortcomings of the franchising organizational form. 

Her work suggests caution in developing potential public policy changes as consumers, existing and potential franchisees, as well as their employees stand to lose in the long term if franchising becomes less competitive as a form of organization. More broadly, Lafontaine's research has made seminal contributions to our understanding of how firms interact with each other in the process of procuring inputs or distributing their products, and prompted her appointment as Director of the Bureau of Economics at the FTC in 2014-15. In particular, her research has shown that factors driving vertical integration and vertical contracting can be very different from those motivating horizontal mergers, so analyses of vertical mergers should start from a different premise compared to analyses of horizontal mergers. Her detailed analyses of franchise contract terms, as described in her book The Economics of Franchising, provide further reasons why, in her view, the rule of reason continues to be the right approach in antitrust cases involving vertical restraints.

Professor Emerita Valerie Suslow and Adjunct Professor Margaret Levenstein have pursued a collaborative research agenda on the economics of cooperative behavior among firms, with a specific focus on cartels. Agreements between competing firms to reduce the intensity of competition can include actions such as price fixing, allocating geographic markets, allocating customers, and bid-rigging at auctions. Historically, such cooperative behavior was legal throughout the world but illegal in the United States under the Sherman Act of 1890. 

The U.S. National Industrial Recovery Act of the early 1930s suspended price-fixing antitrust laws in certain circumstances. In the mid-1990s, after many decades of inattention, it became clear to competition policy enforcers that cartel activity was rampant and was likely causing substantial consumer harm. This spurred new leniency and amnesty policy tools to become available to firms. In their highly cited article "What Determines Cartel Success?" Levenstein and Suslow make the case that while cartels may break up due to cheating on the agreement, the more insurmountable problems are entry and adjustments in the face of changing economic conditions. "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Determinants of Cartel Duration" shows that cartels that turn to price wars to punish cheaters are not stable. Highly stable cartels draw upon a vast toolkit of mechanisms to enhance their stability and, therefore, their duration and economic harm. 

Levenstein and Suslow's work has been cited in policy reports by organizations around the world, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization. They continue to explore hidden or overlooked sources of harm to consumers that may result from cartel activity, most recently turning their attention to the role played by vertical relationships between firms engaged in horizontal collusion, as well as how collusion may be facilitated by the use of a price index in long-term contracts.

The article "Social Distancing as a Control Mechanism" by Professor James Westphal, is part of a larger stream of research that developed a more sociological perspective on corporate leadership and governance, an area of scholarship that had been largely dominated by economic perspectives into the 1990s. In a series of studies, Westphal and colleagues revealed a collection of social and psychological mechanisms by which governance policies, structures, and practices that were assumed to promote the economic interests of shareholders and other stakeholders were frequently subverted in ways that served the interests of powerful corporate elites. One such mechanism was "social distancing," a social sanction in which corporate directors who participated in governance reforms that threatened to increase board control over top management at one firm were socially isolated and even ostracized at other firms where they served on the board. They were less likely to be invited to informal meetings, and other directors were less likely to build on their comments and suggestions or solicit their opinions on strategic issues in formal board meetings. Directors who experienced social distancing, witnessed it firsthand, or were socially connected to a director who experienced it, were less likely to participate subsequently in elite-threatening actions. In that sense, the social distancing that Westphal identified parallels and anticipates the social distancing that we all learned about and practiced during the COVID-19 pandemic. But unlike social distancing during a pandemic, social distancing in corporate leadership, like the other social and psychological mechanisms that the authors uncovered, helped maintain a system that serves the interests of a powerful few rather than the many who depend on it for employment, goods and services, and wealth creation.

Previously, it was commonly believed that the media had little role to play in capital markets -- that they neither produced information nor disseminated information in a meaningful manner. Professor Greg Miller questioned this logic and set out to see if there was empirical evidence that would support such an assumption. 

Miller found that the business press acted as a corporate watchdog that was instrumental in uncovering financial misconduct. As such, the business press was no longer viewed as talking heads, but as investigative journalism which brought value to the market through the governance role it played. With the more recent introduction of social media, many believed that social media had no role to play in capital markets. A team of researchers from U-M, including Beth Blankespor, Miller, and Hal White, decided to take a novel approach and see if social media could improve capital market outcomes. 

Their work was the first to show that social media played an important role in disseminating corporate financial information. Their foundation of research was instrumental in corporate investor relation groups adopting social media to disseminate information to market participants.

Professor David Hess is a thought leader in using new governance regulatory theory to advance the effective and efficient use of corporate monitors in U.S. and international settings. Hess and his co-authors published their first research on the topic in 2008 in the Cornell International Law Journal. 

Since then, David has become a recognized thought leader with multiple published articles and book chapters on using monitors in settlement agreements to battle corruption and cultivate ethical behavior. 

Based on his expertise, in 2013, the American Bar Association's Task Force on Standards for Monitors asked Hess to serve as its reporter. In 2020, the ABA published the 77-page Criminal Justice Monitors and Monitoring Standards. Hess' role as a reporter required that he draft and revise the standards before each meeting to reflect task force input. 

This required legal research and drafting of explanatory memoranda as well as responding to comments and concerns of task force members and ABA officials. The Standards are used by companies, prosecutors, and judges when considering the use of corporate monitors with Deferred Prosecution Agreements or other settlement agreements resulting from concerns about fraud or other misconduct. The Standards may be used by other countries when establishing monitoring programs.

From 1990-1993, Michigan Ross housed the Minority Summer Institute with support from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business and the Graduate Management Admission Council. MSI was designed to increase the number of minority faculty in business and management education. 

Each year, 30 Black, Hispanic, and Native American college students were selected to participate in MSI's six-week program. While at Ross, the students were involved in a series of classes, informational sessions, and presentations that provided a first-hand introduction to doctoral studies and the life and work of business professors. 

According to Dave Wilson, former president of GMAC, "When one thinks about changing the world, the MSI initiative must be seen as a resounding success." Following the last offering of MSI, the KPMG Foundation initiated the PhD Project, which has continued the mission of MSI. The PhD Project reports that the number of underrepresented business professors in the United States has risen from 294 in 1994 to more than 1,700 today.

In their paper, “Crowdfunding the Front Lines: An Empirical Study of Teacher-Driven School Improvement,” Professors Samantha Keppler, Jun Li, and Andrew Wu conducted the first large-scale empirical test of the frontline improvement theory in K-12 schools. The theory, originating in automotive manufacturing, states that empowering front-line employees to identify organizational and process problems and implement solutions improves organizational performance and customer satisfaction. In this case, the team of Michigan Ross professors was interested in how teacher-identified problems in the classroom and crowd-funded solutions improved learning outcomes for K-12 students.

The team analyzed data on thousands of K-12 teacher projects on the largest teacher crowdfunding site, DonorsChoose. They found that one funded project (about $400 in value), on average, achieves a significant increase in the percentage of students scoring basic and above on all tested subjects in high school, as well as science and language arts in primary and middle schools. This effect translates to two-nine additional students moving up to at least a basic level of proficiency in the correlating subject. The effect of these projects is greatest in low-income schools, where funded projects, on average, move four-10 additional students to at least a basic level of proficiency in tested subjects.

From the textual analyses of the teacher's written statements about the impact of the projects in their schools, Keppler, Li, and Wu additionally learned that student academic performance is significantly better when teachers use crowd-funded money to improve knowledge retention, as a repeated learning tool, and to differentiate or personalize learning.

Due to the demonstrated impact of teacher-driven crowdfunded projects, DonorsChoose has partnered with eight states to spend COVID-19 education relief funding on teacher crowdfunding projects. To date, these partnerships have funded over $100 million of teacher projects from over 100,000 teachers, impacting over 10 million students.

In 2008, an article by Michigan Ross Professor Scott Rick changed how academics, practitioners, and the general public thought about consumers’ spending habits. The key insight was that many people who spend very little are frustrated with their behavior. They consistently spend less than they think they should, often with negative consequences for themselves and those around them. Under-spenders (“tightwads”) and over-spenders (“spendthrifts”) are two sides of the same coin: both experience conflict and distress around their spending habits. The scale Rick and colleagues developed to measure these tendencies has become widely used by marketing and psychology researchers. The tightwad-spendthrift construct attracted even more attention when Rick and colleagues demonstrated that tightwads and spendthrifts are more likely to marry one another than they are to marry someone like themselves. This “opposites attract” pattern is initially enjoyable, but eventually, as partners begin to confront a never-ending series of joint spending and saving decisions, tightwad-spendthrift differences harm relationship quality.

This research has attracted broad attention beyond the boundaries of marketing academia. It has been the topic of webinars, podcasts, and other features produced by the National Science Foundation, the American Psychological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Economic Forum. It has received years of sustained coverage from media outlets such as NPR, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Financial organizations like the CFP Board, ING, Charles Schwab, and Equifax have informed their clients and customers about the implications of this research. Most notably, in 2024, St. Martin’s Press published a mass-market book about this research, titled Tightwads and Spendthrifts: Navigating the Money Minefield in Real Relationships.