srb
najnovije

Big Shot May 2026

Empirical evidence: In a longitudinal study of 50 “celebrity CEOs” (defined as appearing on magazine covers), Malmendier & Tate (2009) found that after receiving major awards, these leaders subsequently underperformed their non-celebrity peers, took on more debt, and engaged in more value-destroying acquisitions. The Big Shot status itself corrupted decision-making. 4.1 Case A: The Turnaround Artist (Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos) Holmes exemplifies the pure form of the Big Shot. Structural power (board control) combined with performative visibility (TED Talks, magazine profiles) generated attributional exaggeration—investors believed she had invented revolutionary technology. The paradox manifested when decisiveness became fraudulent concealment; risk-tolerance became regulatory evasion.

This is the sociocognitive component. Observers—employees, journalists, investors—systematically over-attribute outcomes to the Big Shot’s personal agency. For example, a company’s stock surge is credited to the CEO’s “vision,” while a favorable market cycle is ignored. Conversely, failures are often deflected to subordinates or external forces, a dynamic known as the “self-serving bias at scale” (Campbell et al., 2017). 3. The Big Shot Paradox The central theoretical contribution of this paper is the identification of a paradox: The behavioral attributes that create Big Shots are the same attributes that lead to their downfall. Big Shot

Jobs offers a successful variant. After being fired (a fall from Big Shot status), his return was marked by attenuated Big Shot behavior: he retained performative visibility but tempered decisiveness with design discipline. Crucially, he built a team (Jony Ive, Tim Cook) that counterbalanced his risk-tolerance. This suggests that managed Big Shots—those with institutional constraints—outperform unconstrained ones. Empirical evidence: In a longitudinal study of 50

Empirical evidence: In a longitudinal study of 50 “celebrity CEOs” (defined as appearing on magazine covers), Malmendier & Tate (2009) found that after receiving major awards, these leaders subsequently underperformed their non-celebrity peers, took on more debt, and engaged in more value-destroying acquisitions. The Big Shot status itself corrupted decision-making. 4.1 Case A: The Turnaround Artist (Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos) Holmes exemplifies the pure form of the Big Shot. Structural power (board control) combined with performative visibility (TED Talks, magazine profiles) generated attributional exaggeration—investors believed she had invented revolutionary technology. The paradox manifested when decisiveness became fraudulent concealment; risk-tolerance became regulatory evasion.

This is the sociocognitive component. Observers—employees, journalists, investors—systematically over-attribute outcomes to the Big Shot’s personal agency. For example, a company’s stock surge is credited to the CEO’s “vision,” while a favorable market cycle is ignored. Conversely, failures are often deflected to subordinates or external forces, a dynamic known as the “self-serving bias at scale” (Campbell et al., 2017). 3. The Big Shot Paradox The central theoretical contribution of this paper is the identification of a paradox: The behavioral attributes that create Big Shots are the same attributes that lead to their downfall.

Jobs offers a successful variant. After being fired (a fall from Big Shot status), his return was marked by attenuated Big Shot behavior: he retained performative visibility but tempered decisiveness with design discipline. Crucially, he built a team (Jony Ive, Tim Cook) that counterbalanced his risk-tolerance. This suggests that managed Big Shots—those with institutional constraints—outperform unconstrained ones.