Search results

This study investigates the relationship between the Chief Executive Officer's (CEO) overconfidence and financial reporting complexity in Iran, a context characterized by weak corporate governance and heightened managerial discretion.

The sample consists of 1,445 firm-year observations from 2010 to 2021. CEO overconfidence (CEOOC) is evaluated using an investment-based index, specifically capital expenditures. Financial reporting complexity (Complexity) is measured through textual features, particularly three readability measures (Fog, SMOG and ARI) extracted from annual financial statements. The ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is employed to test the research hypothesis.

Results suggest that CEOOC is positively related to Complexity, leading to reduced readability. Additionally, robustness analyses demonstrate that the relationship between CEOOC and Complexity is more distinct and significant for firms with lower profitability than those with higher profitability. This implies that overconfident CEOs in underperforming firms tend to increase complexity. Also, firms with better financial performance present a more positive tone in their annual financial statements, reflecting their superior performance. The findings remain robust to alternative measures of CEOOC and Complexity and are consistent after accounting for endogeneity issues using firm fixed-effects, propensity score matching (PSM), entropy balancing approach and instrumental variables method.

This study adds to the literature by delving into the effect of CEOs' overconfidence on financial reporting complexity, a facet not thoroughly investigated in prior studies. The paper pioneers the use of textual analysis techniques on Persian texts, marking a unique approach in financial reporting and a first for the Persian language. However, due to the inherent challenges of text mining and feature extraction, the results should be approached with caution.

The insights from this study can guide investors in understanding the potential repercussions of CEOOC on financial reporting complexity. This will assist them in making informed investment decisions and monitoring the financial reporting practices of their invested companies. Policymakers and regulators can also reference this research when formulating policies to enhance financial reporting quality and ensure capital market transparency. The innovative application of textual analysis in this study might spur further research in other languages and contexts.

This research stands as the inaugural study to explore the relationship between CEOs' overconfidence and financial reporting complexity in both developed and developing capital markets. It thereby broadens the extant literature to include diverse capital market environments.

The role of chief executive officer (CEO) personal characteristics in shaping corporate policies has attracted increasing academic attention in the past two decades. In this review, the authors synthesize extant research on CEO attributes by reviewing 232 articles published in 29 journals from the accounting, finance and management literature. This review provides an overview of existing findings, highlights current trends and interdisciplinary differences in research approaches and identifies potential avenues for future research.

To review the literature on CEO attributes, the authors manually collected peer-reviewed articles in accounting, finance and management journals from 2000 to 2021. The authors conducted in-depth analysis of each paper and manually recorded the theories, data sources, country of study, study period, measures of CEO attributes and dependent variables. This procedure helped the authors group the selected articles into themes and sub-themes. The authors compared the findings in various disciplines and provided direction for future research.

The authors highlight the role of CEO personal attributes in influencing corporate decision-making and firm outcomes. The authors categorize studies of CEO traits into three main research themes: (1) demographic attributes and experience (including age, gender, culture, experience, education); (2) CEO interactions with others (social and political networks) and (3) underlying attributes (including personality, values and ideology). The evidence shows that CEO characteristics significantly affect a wide range of specific corporate policies that serve as mechanisms through which individual CEOs determine firm success and performance.

CEO selection is one of the most crucial decisions made by corporations. The study findings provide valuable insights to corporate executives, boards, investors and practitioners into how CEOs’ personal characteristics can impact future firm decisions and outcomes that can, in turn, inform the high-stake process of CEO recruitment and selection. The study findings have significant practical implications for corporations, such as contributing to executive training programs, to assist executives and directors attain a greater level of self-awareness.

Building on the theoretical foundation of upper echelons theory, the authors offer an integrated theoretical framework to consolidate existing empirical research on the impacts of CEO personal attributes on firm outcomes across accounting and finance (A&F) and management literature. The study findings provide a roadmap for scholars to bridge the interdisciplinary divide between A&F and management research. The authors advocate a more holistic and multifaceted approach to examining CEOs, each of whom embodies a myriad of personal characteristics that comprise their unique identity. The study findings encourage future researchers to expand the investigation of the boundary conditions that magnify or moderate the impacts of CEO idiosyncrasies.

The purpose of this study is to examine the moderating role of the characteristics of the chief executive officer (CEO) on the association between CEO power and corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance.

This paper conducts multiple regression analyses to empirically test the proposed hypotheses based on a sample of US-based publicly held companies. The sample period extends from 2000 to 2018. Firm-level CSR ratings are obtained from the Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini (KLD) database (currently known as MSCI ESG STATS). Financial data and CEO data are retrieved from Compustat and ExecuComp databases, respectively. Additional test and robustness analysis are performed.

This paper shows that firms with more powerful CEOs are less likely to engage in CSR activities. The negative association between CEO power and CSR is found to be exacerbated by CEOs who are younger, more competent and overconfident; however, this negative association is mitigated by CEOs who are female. This paper also finds that gender plays a more important role among CEO characteristics. Collectively, the findings highlight the potential opportunities to better understand the role of various CEO characteristics that jointly affect CSR.

First, this is the first study providing a comprehensive empirical analysis of how various CEO characteristics jointly affect CSR. Prior studies that focus on standalone CEO characteristics offer an incomplete picture of the relation between a single CEO characteristic and a firm's CSR performance. The current study thus extends the research field by examining the association between seemingly unrelated CEO characteristics and CSR performance. The results also highlight that gender is the critical factor moderating the relationship between CEO power and CSR performance when it is compared with CEO age, ability and overconfidence. Second, the authors add to the literature on employee selection by showing that female CEOs mitigate the negative effect of managerial power on CSR performance. Although the currently available empirical research in management control systems focuses on ex-post analyses of moral hazard mitigation for incumbent employees, both the economics and management literature acknowledge ex ante evidence suggesting that employee selection is even more important. Our findings may provide insight into the selection of CEOs.

This paper aims to provide a systematic review of literature pertaining to how executive behavioral characteristics relate to financial reporting decisions.

The authors review 44 papers published between 2001 and 2021 in top journals that are nested in leading business, economic and accounting journals.

Through the systematic review, the authors provide a framework for the emergence of narcissism and how it relates to decision making and hence, firm performance. Additionally, this paper identifies different measures of measuring narcissism with their pros and cons and suggest that different measures lead to different outcomes in prior literature.

The study contributes to a growing stream of research on executives' attributes influence on decision making. The authors recommend that future research may focus more on the chief financial officer (CFO) role as the majority of literature in CEO based. Additionally, the authors suggest that different settings may moderate the outcomes, and the authors propose that future research may be conducted to show how the regulatory environment affects or moderates narcissism effect.

The aim of this article is to highlight the major part played by executives in the escalation of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI). Based on the upper echelons theory, the authors developed a model which shows the essential role of CEOs in explaining CSI. The authors proposed that the key personality traits of CEOs—narcissism—, as well as their power, could explain the degree of CSI.

Due to the significant methodological challenges when investigating CSI, the authors explored a novel method for measuring CSI in order to assess the degree of irresponsible behaviors. The authors build a CSI scale based on the perceptions of key informants, i.e. experts with diverse professional backgrounds. The authors apply CSI scale in a sample of 84 Spanish companies that were involved in CSI.

The results of the authors’ empirical study show the positive and significant influence of CEO narcissism and CEO power on the degree of CSI.

On the one hand, corporate irresponsibility scandals have relevant social consequences and practical implications. On the other hand, narcissism is a natural feature of managers in top positions that is increasing in societies.

The authors’ findings may help CEOs, TMTs and corporate boards to acknowledge potential sources of CSI decreasing its likelihood through counterbalancing CEO's power and considering the dark side of narcissism.

On the one hand, corporate scandals have relevant social and practical implications. On the other hand, narcissism is a natural feature of managers in top positions that is increasing in societies.

In this paper, the authors highlight the role of CEOs characteristics and their firms as the key actors for explaining and understanding the degree of CSI.

本研究擬強調行政主管在加劇企業無社會責任感上所扮演的主要角色。我們根據高層梯隊理論, 開發了一個模型, 來顯示執行長如何在解釋企業無社會責任感上所起的關鍵作用。我們提出一個見解, 就是: 執行長的主要人格特質-自戀和其權力-或許能解釋企業無社會責任感的程度。

由於面對在關於企業無社會責任感的研究法上的重大挑戰, 我們探索了一個估量企業無社會責任感的新穎方法, 以能對企業無社會責任感行為的程度進行評估。我們根據主要的資訊提供者的觀念和看法, 制定了一個企業無社會責任感的等級 (這些主要的資訊提供者均為具有不同專業背景的專家), 我們在84間西班牙公司的樣本裡, 使用了這企業無社會責任感等級, 而這些公司均涉及企業無社會責任感的。

我們這實證研究的結果顯示, 執行長的自戀和其權力, 對企業無社會責任感的程度, 起著正面和顯著的影響。

在本學術論文裡, 我們強調了執行長的特徵和他們的公司, 是瞭解和解釋企業無社會責任感的程度的關鍵行為者。

一方面, 企業無社會責任感的醜聞會帶來相關的社會後果和實務方面的影響;而另一方面, 自戀是高層主管的自然特徵, 而這些特徵, 在我們的社會裡不斷增強。本研究的結果, 或許可幫助執行長、高層管理團隊和公司董事會去承認企業無社會責任感的潛在原因, 並以透過平衡執行長的權力和考慮自戀的陰暗面而減低企業無社會責任感產生的可能。

Existing literature in experimental accounting research suggests that accounting professionals and people with accounting backgrounds tend to have a lower level of moral reasoning and ethical development. Motivated by these findings, this paper aims to examine whether chief executive officers (CEOs) with accounting backgrounds have an impact on firms’ earnings management behavior and the level of accounting conservatism.

The authors classify CEOs into those with and without accounting backgrounds using BoardEx data. Using discretionary accruals from several different models, they do not find that CEOs with accounting backgrounds are more likely to engage in income-increasing accruals. However, the authors find that CEOs with accounting backgrounds exhibit lower levels of conservatism, proxied by C-scores and T-scores (Basu, 1997). This finding suggests that CEOs with accounting backgrounds recognize bad news more quickly than good news, consistent with the accounting principle of “anticipating all losses but anticipating no gains”.

The authors show that firms whose CEOs have accounting backgrounds exhibit lower levels of accounting conservatism. However, these firms do not exhibit higher levels of income-increasing discretionary accruals. This study documents the impact of CEOs’ educational backgrounds on firms’ accounting choices and confirms prior findings in experimental accounting research using large sample archival data.

This paper is the first study that investigates the impact of CEOs’ accounting backgrounds on firms’ financial reporting policy. The findings may have some policy implications. If accounting backgrounds of CEOs can make a significant difference on firms’ behavior, it is reasonable to make CEOs accountable for the quality of financial reporting. This paper is one of the first to empirically test inferences drawn by experimental accounting research. There has been a gap between archival and experimental accounting studies. The authors propose that interesting research questions can be addressed by filling in such a gap.

This study investigates how small firms develop preferences for varying levels of alliance partner diversity by applying a behavioral perspective.

Data were collected via an original survey administered by the Swedish National Bureau of Statistics (SCB) of 1,026 Swedish firms with 50 employees or less. Hypotheses were tested by specifying a series of fractional response regressions.

The results show a U-shaped relationship between experienced and preferred alliance partner diversity in small firms and further show moderating effects of firm age, prior growth and environmental dynamism. The findings suggest that preferences towards diverse alliance portfolios in small firms may arise, not only from well-informed deliberate strategic thinking based on prior experience, but also as a consequence of cognitive bias.

The findings suggest that (1) small firms considering a wide variety of alliance partners should carefully investigate whether they are, in fact, capable of mastering a highly diverse alliance portfolio or if they are overconfident novices. (2) Holders of homogenous alliance portfolios should recurringly investigate whether homogeneity is due to informed strategy or inertia.

This study contributes to the literature on alliance partner diversity and behavioral alliance portfolio configuration by shedding light on the learning mechanisms that shape alliance portfolio strategies of small firms by explicating the complexity of how different experience levels of partner variety affect current alliance portfolio preferences.

In this paper the authors aim to argue that the existence of a strong corporate governance mechanism (a formal credibility-enhancing mechanism) and the presence of a more trustworthy-looking CEO (an informal credibility-enhancing mechanism) are substitutes.

By using machine-learning-based facial-feature-point detection technique, the authors construct a proprietary facial-trustworthiness database for a large-scale of CEOs in the US listed companies. First, the authors manually search for qualifying CEO image from websites and annual reports. Second, by following the neuroscience and psychology literature, the authors use the machine-learning-based face detector to identify the facial features in the CEO photos to calculate a rich and reliable set of facial-trustworthiness measures. The authors then construct a composite facial-trustworthiness index for each CEO. After obtaining accounting data, the authors’ final sample comprises 16,201 firm-year observations for 3,186 CEOs in the sample period of 2000-2018.

The results of the authors’ regression analyses show a negative association between board monitoring intensity and CEOs' facial trustworthiness, indicating that board directors may factor CEOs' facial trustworthiness into their monitoring decisions. Moreover, the authors find that these results are mainly driven by CEOs whose tenure is below the third quartile (i.e. eight years). The authors further find stronger results for externally hired CEOs than internally promoted CEOs. Finally, the authors’ results remain robust when using change models or subsample of CEO photos in recent years.

First, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that adopts a large sample to provide systematic evidence on the directors' use of facial trustworthiness. This study extends the literature by documenting the impacts of CEOs' individual characteristics on the board monitoring intensity. Second, the results of this study emphasized the important role of perceptions based on executives' facial appearance in firm valuation, executive compensation and audit fee, and by presenting empirical evidence that CEOs' facial trustworthiness affects board monitoring intensity. Third, this study responds to the call for research on personalized trust by Hsieh et al. (2020).

This paper aims to investigate how organization capital influences different forms of corporate risk. It also explores how the relationship between organization capital and risks varies in the cross-section of firms.

To test the hypothesis, this study employs the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model using a large sample of the United States (US) data over the 1981–2019 period. It also uses an instrumental variable approach and an errors-in-variables panel regression approach to mitigate endogeneity problems.

The empirical results show that organization capital is positively related to both idiosyncratic risk and total risk but negatively related to systematic risk. The cross-sectional analysis shows that the positive relationship between organization capital and idiosyncratic risk is significantly more pronounced for the subsample of firms with high information asymmetry and human capital. Moreover, the negative relationship between organization capital and systematic risk is significantly more pronounced for firms with greater efficiency and firms facing higher industry- and economy-wide risks.

The findings have important implications for investors and policymakers. For example, since organization capital increases idiosyncratic risk and total risk but reduces systematic risk, investors should take organization capital into account in portfolio formation and risk management. Moreover, the findings lend support to the argument on the recognition of intangible assets in financial statements. In particular, the study suggests that standard-setting bodies should consider corporate reporting frameworks to incorporate the disclosure of intangible assets into financial statements, particularly given the recent surge of corporate intangible assets and their critical impact on corporate risks.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to adopt a large sample to provide systematic evidence on the relationship between organization capital and a wide range of risks at the firm level. The authors show that the effect of organization capital on firm risks differs remarkably depending on the kind of firm risk a particular risk measure captures. This study thus makes an original contribution to resolving competing views on the effect of organization capital on firm risks.