CEOs’ Transformational Leadership and Product Innovation Performance: The Roles of Corporate Entrepreneurship and Technology Orientation

Product innovation is an important research topic that has stimulated significant interest among management scholars and practitioners. Leadership has been suggested to be a critical factor affecting product innovation. Numerous studies have documented that transformational leadership positively influences product innovation performance, which is conceptualized as the degree to which a new product and/or service has achieved its market share, sales, rates of asset return, rates of investment return, and profit objectives. However, there is a lack of studies examining the specific means through which transformational leadership influences product innovation performance at the firm level. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the processes through which such effect is achieved and to determine whether corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation as intervening factors influence this effect. To test the hypotheses, data were collected from 151 matched top management team (TMT) members and chief executive officers (CEOs) from Chinese manufacturing firms. Two separate questionnaires were used to collect the data. TMT members’ questionnaire included measures of CEO's transformational leadership, whereas CEOs’ questionnaire included questions about corporate entrepreneurship, technology orientation, and product innovation performance. Hierarchical linear regression was used to test the hypothesized effects. The results of the analysis provided the support for the fully mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship on the relationship between CEOs' transformational leadership and product innovation performance. In addition, technology orientation was found to significantly moderate the CEOs' transformational leadership–corporate entrepreneurship linkage. Furthermore, the mediated moderation effect of corporate entrepreneurship on the relationships among CEOs’ transformational leadership, technology orientation, and product innovation performance was significantly supported. By studying leadership among CEOs, this study contributes to the research by elucidating the mechanisms through which transformational leadership influences product innovation performance. The mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship encourages managers to improve their leadership style so as to enhance the development of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation practices. The findings also show that technology orientation provides the conditions for the smooth translation of the CEO's transformational leadership into actual entrepreneurial activities. Hence, firms should prioritize technology orientation to optimize the implementation of transformational leadership so as to emphasize innovation and new venture creation.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.     

Firm‐specific knowledge assets and employment arrangements: Evidence from CEO compensation design and CEO dismissal

Research summary : We argue that firms with greater specificity in knowledge structure need to both encourage their CEOs to stay so that they make investments with a long‐term perspective, and provide job securities to the CEOs so that they are less concerned about the risk of being dismissed. Accordingly, we found empirical evidence that specificity in firm knowledge assets is positively associated with the use of restricted stocks in CEO compensation design (indicating the effort of CEO retention) and negatively associated with CEO dismissal (indicating the job securities the firm committed to CEOs). Furthermore, firm diversification was found to mitigate the effect of firm‐specific knowledge on both CEO compensation design and CEO dismissal, as CEOs are more removed from the deployment of knowledge resources in diversified firms. Managerial summary : A firm's knowledge structure, that is, the extent to which its knowledge assets are firm‐specific versus general, has implications for both CEO compensation design and CEO dismissal. In particular, we find that a firm with a high level of firm‐specific knowledge has the incentive to retain its CEO through the use of restricted stocks in CEO compensation. Such a firm is also likely to provide job security for its CEO, leading to a lower likelihood of CEO dismissal. These arguments, however, are less likely to hold in diversified corporations as CEOs in such corporations are more removed from the deployment of knowledge assets. A key managerial implication is that CEO compensation and job security design should be made according to the nature of firm knowledge assets. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Follow the leader (or not): The influence of peer CEOs’ characteristics on interorganizational imitation

Research Summary: We argue that because charisma and narcissism represent widely held prototypes of effective and ineffective forms of leadership, respectively, the likelihood that a focal firm will imitate the practices of its peer firms is affected by these peer firms’ CEO characteristics. We theorize that peer firm CEO charisma enhances the focal firm’s imitation of peer firms’ behaviors, while peer firm CEO narcissism diminishes it. We further posit that the uncertainty of the context affects these imitation processes: industry dynamism and prior experience in a given strategic domain, respectively, strengthens and dampens focal firms’ susceptibility to these peer CEOs’ attributes. We test and find support for these ideas using a longitudinal sample of Fortune 500 firms in two distinct domains, corporate strategy and corporate social responsibility. Managerial Summary: When companies are uncertain about the costs and benefits of strategic actions this may lead them to imitate the actions of peer companies. But given the uncertainty, the challenge for executives is: which companies to emulate and which to ignore? In a sample of Fortune 500 companies, we find that the charisma or narcissism of a peer company’s CEO positively or negatively influences, respectively, the degree to which the peer company’s strategic actions are imitated. We reason that this is because these particular CEO attributes are widely believed to drive leadership effectiveness or ineffectiveness, respectively. We also find that the effects of these CEO characteristics on imitation are stronger in dynamic industry environments and weaker for companies that already have experience with the given strategy.     

CEO championing of pricing,pricing capabilities and firm performance in industrial firms

CEOs uniquely shape activities within the firm. Among potential activities, pricing is unique: pricing has a direct and substantial effect on firm performance. In what may be the first quantitative study in industrial marketing polling exclusively CEOs globally we examine to which degree CEO championing of pricing influences pricing capabilities and firm performance. Our sample consists of 358 CEOs of industrial firms. Our results suggest that the level of championing of pricing by the CEO positively influences decision-making rationality, pricing capabilities, and collective mindfulness thereby leading to a significantly higher firm performance. This study also documents a relationship between decision making rationality and pricing capabilities (but not firm performance) thus suggesting that intuition in pricing decisions could drive firm performance.     

The effect of CEOs on firm performance

The extent to which CEOs influence firm performance is fundamental to scholarly understanding of how organizations work; yet, this linkage is poorly understood. Previous empirical efforts to examine the link between CEOs and firm performance using variance decomposition, while provocative, nevertheless suffer from methodological problems that systematically understate the relative impact of CEOs on firm performance compared to industry and firm effects. This study addresses these methodological problems and reexamines the percentage of the variance in firm performance explained by heterogeneity in CEOs. The results of this study suggest that in certain settings the ‘CEO effect’ on corporate‐parent performance is substantially more important than that of industry and firm effects, but only moderately more important than industry and firm effects on business‐segment performance. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Performance deviations and acquisition premiums: The impact of CEO celebrity on managerial risk‐taking

Research summary: This article draws on identity control theory and a study of acquisition premiums to explore how CEO celebrity status and financial performance relative to aspirations affect firm risk behavior. The study finds that celebrity CEOs tend to pay smaller premiums for target firms, but these tendencies change when prior firm performance deviates from the industry average returns, thereby leading these CEOs to pay higher premiums. The study also finds that the premiums tend to be even larger when celebrity CEOs have more recently attained celebrity status. Taken together, these findings contribute to identity control theory and CEO celebrity literatures by suggesting that celebrity status is a double‐edged sword and that the internalization of celebrity status by CEOs strongly influences the decision‐making of CEOs. Managerial summary: The purpose of this article is to examine how CEO celebrity status and financial performance relative to aspirations affect the size of acquisition premiums. The study finds that celebrity CEOs tend to pay smaller premiums for target firms. However, when celebrity CEOs' prior firm performance is either better or worse than the industry average, these CEOs pay higher premiums. This situation is exacerbated when the CEO has only recently been crowned a celebrity. In effect, these CEOs feel great pressure to match the inflated performance expectations that come with celebrity status. These findings suggest that being a celebrity is a double‐edged sword. The implication here is that CEOs who have recently been crowned a celebrity should be aware of these pressures and cope accordingly. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Performance consequences of new CEO ‘Outsiderness’: Moderating effects of pre‐ and post‐succession contexts

This study seeks to reconcile inconsistent findings on the performance consequences of new CEO origin. Drawing on five decades of empirical research on CEO succession outcomes, I develop a more refined theoretical conceptualization and a finer‐grained measurement of the underlying construct of the insider vs. outsider CEO, and build and test a more comprehensive and nuanced framework of the succession context. A longitudinal investigation of the U.S. airline and chemical industries (1972–2002) indicates that new CEO ‘Outsiderness’, conceptualized as a continuum raging from new CEOs who have a greater combination of firm and industry tenure to those who have no experience in the firm and the industry, has no main effect on post‐succession firm performance. However, significant moderating effects are found when environmental munificence, pre‐succession firm performance, and concomitant strategic and senior executive team changes are considered. Together, these findings highlight the need to consider both pre‐ and post‐succession contextual factors for evaluating the performance effects of new CEO outsiderness. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The harder they fall,the faster they rise: Approach and avoidance focus in narcissistic CEOs

Drawing on theoretical underpinnings of approach‐avoidance motivation and CEO narcissism, we provide a framework examining stronger approach focus (motivation towards desirable outcomes) and weaker avoidance focus (motivation away from undesirable outcomes) in narcissistic CEOs using a quasi‐natural experimental setting—the economic crisis beginning in 2007. Because highly narcissistic CEOs possess lower avoidance motivation in the precrisis period, their firms face greater declines in the onset of the crisis. However, their greater tendency towards approach motivation enables narcissistic CEOs to increase firm performance in the postcrisis period. While narcissistic CEOs are less likely to protect against potential shocks, they are adept at helping firms recover from such shocks. Using a sample of 392 CEOs representing 2,352 CEO firm‐years, we find support for the proposed framework. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When the Former CEO Stays on Board: The Role of the Predecessor’s Board Retention for Product Innovation in Family Firms

Understanding product innovation in family firms is an important research endeavor given the economic predominance of those firms, their idiosyncrasies, and the importance of constant renewal for those firms to achieve transgenerational survival. Recently, family firm research has highlighted the role of next-generation chief executive officers (CEOs; i.e., successors) who are often seen as drivers for innovating a family firm’s products. However, prior research has typically neglected that predecessors, who are often portrayed as less willing to introduce product innovation, frequently remain involved postsuccession through occupying board positions and thus still substantially influence the decision-making processes and outcomes of family firms, such as product innovation. As a result, our understanding of the role of predecessors and their postsuccession involvement in family firms’ product innovation remains unclear. Building on stakeholder salience theory and on insights from the literature on innovation and succession in family firms, we develop hypotheses about how and under which conditions the predecessor’s board retention affects product innovation in family firms after succession. Building on more than 200 family firm CEO succession cases in small- and medium-sized, privately owned family firms, our results reveal that the predecessor’s board retention negatively affects product innovation. This negative effect is strengthened with increasing involvement of the predecessor in the successor selection process, and it is offset in the case of family succession. Our findings contribute to the emerging stream of research on family firm succession and product innovation and provide important implications for practice.     

The microfoundations of open innovation: CEO overconfidence and innovation choices

How to successfully drive open innovation (OI) has been an important issue. However, the existing literature on the determinants of OI mainly focuses on organizational and contingent factors, and the “human side” of it is still not well understood, which also motivates us to explore it more deeply. This paper attempts to link upper echelon theory with OI research using data from a large sample of Chinese listed companies to investigate how the overconfident tendency of the CEO affects his or her preference for different OI modes. At the same time, what role do other top management team (TMT) members play in this process. The results show that overconfident CEOs favor market and organization-oriented OI over technology-oriented OI, and TMT governance can moderate such relationship, that is, as the level of TMT governance increases, the preference of overconfident CEOs for market and organization-oriented OI will be weakened, avoiding the negative effect of excessive adoption of such activities on firm performance. By focusing on the human side of OI, this paper adds to the literature on the impact of strategic leadership, namely the influence of key individual CEO and other executives within the organization on OI management, which is also a response to the emphasis that more attention should be paid to the microfoundations of OI in the future.     

Labor market evaluation versus legacy conservation: What factors determine retiring CEOs' decisions about long‐term investment?

Do CEOs nearing retirement attempt to boost short‐term firm performance or do they care more about what type of legacy they will leave behind? The two opposing predictions about the behavior of CEOs upon retirement suggest that retiring CEOs' decisions about certain long‐term investment items may be more complex than suggested in the literature. In search of an answer to this question, we examine the relationship between CEO retirement and the level of firm commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR). The results show that CEO retirement has a negative effect on firm commitment to CSR. However, we found that the negative effect becomes weaker when CEOs retire at relatively older ages or are retained on the board of directors of their own firms. Our finding suggests that CEOs who face weaker pressure from the labor market for corporate directors may pay more attention to preserving their legacy. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The accentuated CEO career horizon problem: evidence from international acquisitions

We develop a conceptual model of the career horizon problem of CEOs approaching retirement and discuss its implications on firm risk taking, specifically in engagement in international acquisitions. Based on prospect theory and agency theory, we emphasize the legacy conservation and wealth preservation concerns of CEOs and investigate how their holdings of in‐the‐money unexercised options and firm equity accentuate or mitigate the career horizon problem. The model is tested in the context of international acquisitions with a sample of 293 U.S. firms over a five‐year period (1995–1999). We find that a longer CEO career horizon is associated with a higher likelihood of international acquisitions. We also find that CEOs nearing retirement with high levels of in‐the‐money unexercised options and equity holdings are less likely to engage in international acquisitions than CEOs with low levels of in‐the‐money options and equity holdings. The study raises important considerations about the implications of CEOs' equity and in‐the‐money option holdings on firm risk taking at various stages of their career horizon. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effect of CEO pay deviations on CEO withdrawal,firm size,and firm profits

We build upon previous work on the effects of deviations in CEO pay from labor markets to assess how overcompensation or undercompensation affects subsequent voluntary CEO withdrawal, firm size, and firm profitability, taking into account the moderating effect of firm ownership structure. We find that CEO underpayment is related to changes in firm size and CEO withdrawal, and that the relationship between CEO underpayment and CEO withdrawal is stronger in owner‐controlled firms. We also show that when CEOs are overpaid, there is higher firm profitability; a relationship that is weaker among manager‐controlled firms. We then discuss the implications that these findings have for future research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who's in charge here? Co‐CEOs,power gaps,and firm performance

At the pinnacles of organizations, comparative tests of unity of command and shared command are nearly impossible because only one individual sits atop most organizations. In organizations led by co‐CEOs, however, such a test is possible because co‐CEOs can truly share power. But do they? Our research pits the unity‐of‐command principle against the shared‐command principle and finds overall support for the former, even within the co‐CEO context. Our sample of 71 co‐CEO pairs at publicly traded U.S. firms shows that increasing power gaps between co‐CEOs are positively associated with firm performance. This positive association wanes and turns negative, however, as power gaps become very large. We conclude that whatever benefits the co‐CEO structure might offer likely lie outside the shared command paradigm. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Innovating the innovation process: an organisational experiment in global pharma pursuing radical innovation

The challenge of managing the fuzzy front end of the innovation process is particularly acute for large, multi‐brand, research and development (R&D)‐intensive firms. Poor performance at generating radical innovations has resulted in many large organisations seeking to innovate how they organise for innovation. This paper presents an inductive, longitudinal study of an organisational experiment that sought to get ‘game‐changing, radical ideas’ into the new product development funnel of a top three pharma. The immediate outcomes of a team‐based internal innovation tournament included 33 new product ideas, 14 of which were radical. The medium term outcome of the experiment was a reorganisation of how the firm now pursues radical innovation activities. We link these outcomes to team leadership, contrasting innovation processes, including decisions about how to incorporate the ‘voice of the consumer’. The inductive, longitudinal study suggests causal interconnections between innovation team leadership, innovation team processes, and innovation outcomes.     

CEO research orientation,organizational context,and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry

This study develops and tests a comprehensive framework that explains what, when, and how CEO characteristics influence firms’ innovation outcomes in R&D-intensive industries. Empirical evidence from 109 CEOs from 87 U.S.-based pharmaceutical firms over the period 2001–2013 reveals that research-oriented CEOs – those with ability and motivation for science and technology – increase their firms’ innovation outcomes. The results indicate that the CEO–innovation relationship strongly depends on the extent of CEOs’ managerial discretion, which is shaped by the organizational context. We contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the role of CEOs in firms´ innovation performance differentials.     

Reassessing board member allegiance: CEO replacement following financial misconduct

Research summary: We examine how board members' reactions following financial misconduct differ from those following other adverse organizational events, such as poor performance. We hypothesize that inside directors and directors appointed by the CEO may be particularly concerned about their reputation following deceptive financial practices. We demonstrate that directors more closely affiliated with the CEO are more likely to reduce their support for the CEO following financial misconduct, increasing the likelihood of CEO replacement. Enactment of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act similarly alters governance dynamics by creating a greater expectation for sound corporate governance. We demonstrate our findings in U.S. public firms that restated their financial earnings during a 12‐year period before and after the passage of Sarbanes‐Oxley. Managerial summary: Given past concerns about lack of oversight by boards of directors leading to firm financial misconduct, we examine how the relationship between directors and CEOs may be altered in the face of such misconduct. We argue that directors most closely tied to the CEO (inside board members and board members appointed by the CEO), typically the most supportive of the CEO, may become most concerned about their own reputation following financial misconduct. We find that CEOs receive less support from these directors, a finding in contrast to past studies demonstrating that such board members tend to shield CEOs following poor performance. These findings are accentuated following the passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act, which places greater responsibility on the CEO for the accuracy of financial reports. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Managerial Ties and Firm Innovation: Is Knowledge Creation a Missing Link?

Managerial ties, the personal networks of senior managers, have been found to be facilitators of firm performance because of their network benefits. However, social network theory suggests that managerial ties only play a “conduit” role by providing possibilities and opportunities to approach external resources. How can firms turn these possibilities and opportunities into internal knowledge assets and further transform them into firm innovation? Extant research constructs a direct mechanism for the managerial ties–firm innovation link. The research reported here, however, provides and investigates an indirect ties‐innovation argument where organizational knowledge creation processes, including knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, are mediators. And managerial ties are examined through two traditional dimensions, business ties and political ties. This study employs empirical data from 270 firms in China and uses structural equation modeling techniques to reveal interesting findings. First, the results support the key argument that the influence of managerial ties on firm innovation is indirect. Second, knowledge exchange and knowledge combination are different constructs and the former positively influences the latter. More interestingly, business ties can exert a significant direct impact on both knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, while political ties can only influence knowledge exchange directly. Although both knowledge exchange and knowledge combination impact product innovation directly, only knowledge combination can directly influence process innovation. These findings indicate that the role of political ties is declining, but business ties still have substantial influence on firm innovation in transitional China. Different processes of organizational knowledge creation, such as knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, make distinct contributions to firm innovation. Product innovation, as opposed to process innovation, is more externally oriented and needs more organizational level knowledge creation activities. This article extends the understanding of the ties–innovation link, organizational knowledge creation theory, and firm innovation in a transitional economy by providing a more complete understanding of how firms can access and internalize external resources and then transform them into product innovation and process innovation.     

The presence of a separate COO/president and its impact on strategic change and CEO dismissal

This study focuses on the leadership structure at the very top of a firm. Specifically, it examines how the presence of a COO/president, who is separate from the CEO, affects strategic change and CEO dismissal. With longitudinal data on the tenures of 207 CEOs, results suggest that the presence of a separate COO/president increases the magnitude of strategic change under conditions of low firm performance but it decreases the magnitude of strategic change under conditions of high firm performance. In addition, the presence of a separate COO/president increases the likelihood of CEO dismissal under conditions of low firm performance, and this effect is stronger when the magnitude of strategic change is high; but it has no impact on the likelihood of CEO dismissal under conditions of high firm performance. These results suggest that the impact of the presence of a separate COO/president on strategic change and CEO dismissal varies across different organizational contexts. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.