CEO founder status and firm financial performance

Founders create their organizations, yet are often expected to eventually become liabilities to these same organizations. Past empirical research on the relationship between CEO founder status (i.e., is the CEO also the founder?) and firm performance has yielded inconsistent results. This study of 94 founder‐ and nonfounder‐managed firms finds that founder management has no main effect on stock returns over a 3‐year holding period, but that firm size and firm age moderate the CEO founder status–firm performance relationship. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: main effects and interactions with financial performance

We test the effects of stakeholder management on CEOs' salaries, bonuses, stock options, and total compensation. We also examine the extent to which the interaction of stakeholder management and financial performance determines compensation. Using a longitudinal database of 406 Fortune 1000 firms, our results suggest that stakeholder management is relevant to boards of directors when setting CEO compensation. Specifically, we found a significant, negative main effect of stakeholder management on CEO salaries. Further, we found that stakeholder management typically reduces the rewards CEOs may get for increasing levels of financial performance. In tandem, these results indicate that CEOs may jeopardize their personal wealth by pursuing stakeholder‐related initiatives. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

CEO tenure and organizational performance: an intervening model

While CEO job tenure is seen as influencing firm performance, the intervening mechanisms that govern this influence have remained largely unexplored. Given that individuals in the firm most closely influenced by the CEO are members of the top management team (TMT), we focus on the CEO‐TMT interface as one important intervening mechanism. Specifically, our tested model suggests that CEO tenure indirectly influences performance through its direct influences on TMT risk‐taking propensity and the firm's pursuit of entrepreneurial initiatives. Results from structural equation modeling are consistent with this model and support its associated hypotheses. In the discussion, we trace the implications of our study for research and practice. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stock market reaction to CEO certification: the signaling role of CEO background

As a direct result of the corporate scandals that started with Enron and led to general unrest in the financial markets, the Securities and Exchange Commission required chief executive officers (CEOs) and chief financial officers of large publicly traded companies to certify their financial statements. Using market signaling theory, we propose that attributes of the CEO send important signals to the investment community as to the credibility of the CEO certification and thus the quality of the firm's financial statements, which in turn impact the stock market reaction to the CEO certification. We find that a CEO's shareholdings and external directorships are positively related to the abnormal returns of CEO certification. Further, the stock market penalizes a firm with a CEO who is associated with the firm's prior financial restatement and rewards a firm with a CEO who is appointed after the firm's prior financial restatement. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Bank performance and executive compensation: a managerial discretion perspective

This study investigates how the relationship between bank performance and executive compensation is affected by the degree of an executive’s managerial discretion. Managerial discretion is captured by two industry-specific attributes: a bank’s strategic domain, and its regulatory environment. Executive compensation is found to be more related to bank performance in a context of high managerial discretion than in a context of low managerial discretion. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reaffirming the CEO effect is significant and much larger than chance: A comment on Fitza (2014)

A recent study by Fitza argued that the prior estimates of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) effect are conflated with events outside the CEO's control, are largely the result of random chance, and that the true CEO effect is smaller than has been previously estimated. We suggest that the empirical methodology employed by Fitza to support these claims substantially overstates the “random chance” element of the CEO effect. We replicate Fitza's findings, highlight methodological issues, offer alternative conclusions, and using multilevel modeling (MLM), suggest that his analyses mischaracterize the CEO effect. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The CEO Performance Effect: Statistical Issues and a Complex Fit Perspective

How CEOs affect strategy and performance is important to strategic management research. We show that sophisticated statistical analysis alone is problematic for establishing the magnitude and causes of CEO impact on performance. We discuss three problem areas that substantially distort the measurement and sources of a CEO performance effect: (1) the nature of performance time series, (2) confounding and (3) the discovery of many interactions associated with the CEO performance effect. We show that the aggregate of empirical research implies complex interdependency as the driver of the CEO performance effect. This suggests a ‘fit’ model requiring new research approaches. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Spin-off performance: A case of overstated expectations?

While the impact of divestitures on parent firms has been extensively studied, little attention has been given to the performance of the divested units. Previous research has found that spin-offs and sell-offs were associated with significant positive cumulative abnormal returns. However, these studies have not identified whether these benefits were expected to accrue to the divesting firm, the divested unit, or both. Specifically, this study examined the performance as autonomous firms of a sample of 51 voluntary spin-offs by nonfinancial firms across a 6-year period. Three accounting and financial market measures were tracked from 2 years prior to divestiture through the first three years of independence. No change in pre- and post-spin-off performances was observed except for the decline in profitability return on assets (ROA). The effect of relatedness between the parent company and the spinoff was also examined. Divested units which were unrelated to their parents prior to spinoff reported deterioration in performance. Implications for divestiture and restructuring programs are developed.     

Toward more accurate contextualization of the CEO effect on firm performance

We introduce multiple refinements to the standard method for assessing CEO effects on performance, variance partitioning methodology, more accurately contextualizing CEOs' contributions. Based on a large 20‐year sample, our new ‘CEO in Context’ technique points to a much larger aggregate CEO effect than is obtained from typical approaches. As a validation test, we show that our technique yields estimates of CEO effects more in line with what would be expected from accepted theory about CEO influence on performance. We do this by examining the CEO effects in subsamples of low‐, medium‐, and high‐discretion industries. Finally, we show that our technique generates substantially different—and we argue more logical—estimates of the effects of many individual CEOs than are obtained through customary analyses. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Will succession planning increase shareholder wealth? evidence from investor reactions to relay CEO successions

Our study examines investor reactions to a specific form of succession planning—relay succession. Theory predicts that both the initiation and the outcome of a relay CEO succession process will influence shareholder wealth. Our results show that investors generally do not react to the initiation of the process as indicated by heir apparent appointment; but react negatively when the process ends in heir apparent exit from the firm and react positively when the process ends in heir apparent promotion to the CEO position. We also found a strong positive investor reaction to outside CEO promotion and a negative investor reaction to nonheir inside CEO promotion. Further, firm performance exerts an important influence on the wealth effect of heir apparent promotion and exit. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

CEO Dismissal: The role of investment analysts

While poor firm performance has been shown to be a predictor of CEO dismissal, little is known about the role of external constituents on the board's decision to dismiss the firm's CEO. In this study, we propose that investment analysts, as legitimate third‐party evaluators of the firm and its leadership, provide certification as to the CEO's ability, or lack thereof, and thus help reduce the ambiguity associated with the board's evaluation of the CEO's efficacy. In addition, the board tends to respond to investment analysts because their stock recommendations influence investors, whom the board wants to appease. Using panel data on the S&P 500 companies for the 2000–2005 period, we find that negative analyst recommendations result in a higher probability of CEO dismissal. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Self‐selection,endogeneity, and the relationship between CEO duality and firm performance

This study focuses explicitly on the methodological implications of the endogenous theory of governance as applied to firm performance. In particular, if firms choose their governance structures as part of a constrained performance maximization process, then application of an appropriate empirical methodology should reveal statistical evidence of such behavior. In this study we take advantage of the endogenous switching regression model framework to determine whether such predicted optimizing behavior can be corroborated by the data. The model allows us to test explicitly for selection behavior in accordance with comparative advantage and, concomitantly, the presence of selectivity bias, in estimating the impact of CEO duality on firm performance. The selection and performance equations are modeled in accordance with the extant accounting, economics, and management literature on the impact of the dual governance structure on firm performance. Overall, we tested four performance measures for the entire sample of firm‐year observations as well as for the largest three industries in terms of sample sizes. The major finding, robust in all cases, is that there is no evidence to support a contention that CEO duality is a structure purposefully chosen for optimizing performance. If firms are indeed choosing the dual leadership structure, they are doing so for reasons other than improving performance from what it would be otherwise. In fact, for performance measured as market return and earnings per share, there is evidence of a significant selectivity bias that acts to lower performance below what it would have been under random assignment. For performance measured by Tobin's q and return on assets, we found neither evidence of selectivity bias, nor any significant marginal performance impacts of CEO duality. Such findings are inconsistent with an endogenous governance theory, at least when applied to firm performance. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The takeover market in Europe: Control structures and the performance of large companies compared

This paper describes a number of significant differences which exist between countries with respect to the freedom of the take-over market of corporations. The basic division is that between, on the one hand, the oligarchically structured Germanic (and Japanese) firms, which are virtually impossible to take over against the will of the leadership of the company, backed up by various control structures. The Anglo-Saxon type of firm, on the other hand, is—save for some exceptions—democratically structured and subject to bids, even if these displace management. The third type—the one found in Latinic countries—lies in between these two, for various institutionalist reasons.The second part of the paper discusses whether theory can throw any light on the behavioural and performance consequences of these structural/institutional differences. The derivation from such considerations is that, indeed, important and systematic divergencies in corporate behaviour and performance are to be expected.     

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.     

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.