Search results

This study aims to examine the effect of chief executive officer (CEO) integrity on organizations’ strategic orientation. The authors propose that CEOs who have high degrees of integrity tend to negatively influence each of the three core dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) – innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. They also argue that this impact of CEO integrity is likely to be stronger for overconfident CEOs and the CEOs with high power. Furthermore, this negative relationship is expected to attenuate when the firm has high customer orientation and when the CEO is compensated with high equity-pay ratio.

Seemingly unrelated regression analysis was conducted on panel of 741 firm-year observations of 213 firms across 2014–2017. CEO integrity and each of the three dimensions of EO were measured using content analysis of CEOs’ letters to shareholders. CEO power was measured using CEO stock ownership and CEO duality. CEO overconfidence was measured by using options-based measure. Customer orientation was measured by using content analyses on annual reports. CEO equity-pay based ratio was measured as sum of value of stock and option awards divided by CEO’s total compensation. This study considered alternative measures and performed treatments for potential endogeneity, sample selection bias and outliers.

The research findings conclude that organizations with CEOs who have high integrity tend to have lower levels of all sub-dimensions of EO – innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. Further, the results indicate that the negative effect that CEO integrity has, affects one of its dimensions – proactiveness, such that the relation is strengthened when the CEO has high power and is highly overconfident. This negative effect weakens when the CEO is compensated with high equity-pay ratio. The results also indicate that the negative effect of integrity and innovativeness and risk-taking weakens when the firm has high customer orientation.

The research contributes to upper echelon theory literature by adding to the discussion of how business executives’ psychological traits map onto firm behavior. This research also finds common ground between literature on innovation and upper echelons, contributing to awareness about the drivers of firms’ EO.

This research addresses the question of firm relation to EO by highlighting that firms’ EO is also shaped by the psychological traits of their CEOs and the interaction of these traits with CEOs’ cognitive biases. Thus, board members of firms led by CEOs with high integrity can limit CEO’s risk-averse behavior by focusing on their training and by creating incentive systems. It is also advantageous for CEOs to understand that integrity is a double-edged sword, thus leveraging the strengths of their integrity, while simultaneously using tools such as training to diminish its negative aspects.

This paper fulfils a twofold identified need to: study the antecedents of each of the three dimensions of EO, not limited to corporate governance; and unearth the counterproductive behaviors associated with bright traits that make up their dark side

The purpose of this paper is to examine CEO compensation in immigrant-founder firms vs CEO compensation in non-immigrant-founder firms.

Univariate and multi-variate tests are implemented. CEO compensation is designed as a function of the origin of a firm’s founder (immigrant or native), executive characteristics and firm characteristics with firm and year fixed effect regressions. CEO compensation is measured with cash pay, equity-based pay and total compensation.

CEOs of immigrant-founder firms receive higher equity-based compensation and higher total pay than CEOs of non-immigrant-founder firms and the levels of their equity-based and total compensation are contingent upon their stock ownership. CEOs in high-growth immigrant-founder firms receive higher stock-based pay than their counterparts in non-immigrant-founder firms. Immigrant-founder family firms compensate their CEOs with higher equity-based pay than immigrant-founder non-family firms.

The paper provides some explanations on the success of immigrant-founder firms. CEO compensation designs in immigrant-founder firms can be adopted in other firms.

The paper provides some rationale for immigration legislation to encourage the talented to come to the USA and start their business in the USA.

This paper is the first to study executive compensation practice in immigrant-founder firms. The findings provide some practical and policy implications on immigration reform.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the research question whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) and gender influence the likelihood of CEO turnover.

The author uses a large sample of firms over a 21-year period from 1992 to 2013 taken from firms cross-listed in the ESG STATS, Execucomp, and Compustat databases. Logistic regression is used to analyze the determinants of both CEO turnover and the gender of the newly hired CEO.

Firms with better social performance have higher rates of CEO turnover, performance notwithstanding. Further, for firms with decreasing financial performance, it is more likely they will replace their CEO if they have strong CSR vs firms with weak CSR records. In addition, as performance deteriorates, male CEOs will have a higher chance of being replaced relative to female CEOs. For female CEOs, other factors besides financial performance are important determinants of the likelihood of a turnover taking place.

This study finds support for the stakeholder theory of CSR and does not support entrenchment theory. It is the first study to look at CSR, CEO turnover, and gender issues concurrently.

For practitioners looking for tangible effects of CSR in the workplace, this paper provides evidence that it does matter in terms of CEO turnover. The findings suggest that CSR is acting as a deterrent to bad behavior on the part of executives in the face of weak financial performance in particular.

This study is the first to look at the impact of CSR on CEO turnover. Importantly, the findings suggest that CSR is not something that a firm decides or thinks about in the “right” financial environment but is rather an omnipresent focus embedded within the mission of the firm.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship of CEO compensation plans and the risk of managerial equity portfolios with the extent of strategic investments in advertising, capital expenditures and research and development (R&D). The elements of compensation are salary, bonuses, options and restricted stock grants. The authors proxy the design of CEO equity portfolios by the price performance sensitivity of the holdings and the portfolio deltas.

The authors use the components of executive compensation and portfolio risk as the dependent variables, regressing these against measures for the level of strategic investment. The authors test for non-linear relationships between the components of CEO compensation and strategic investments. The sample is a broad cross-section from 1992 to 2016.

The authors find strong support for non-linear relationships of capital expenditures and R&D with CEO bonuses, option grants and restricted stock grants. There are very complex relationships between the components of executive compensation and R&D expenditures, but little evidence of a relationship with advertising expenditures. The authors also find strong complex relationships in the design of CEO equity portfolios with advertising and R&D.

Little earlier research has considered advertising, capital expenditures and R&D in a unified framework. Also, testing for non-linear associations provides much greater insight into the relationship between the components of executive compensation and strategic investment. The findings represent a valuable incremental contribution to the executive compensation literature. The results also have normative policy implications for compensation committees’ design of optimal annual CEO compensation packages to incentivize or discourage particular strategic investment behavior.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings disclosed by firms headquartered in high religious areas (religious firms) are more informative. The non-GAAP disclosure is voluntary and not subject to external audits, and it is difficult to verify the accuracy ex post, which provides management with incentives to strategically use non-GAAP reporting. This study examines religiosity as a potential governance mechanism that reduces management opportunism.

Using a comprehensive sample from 2010 to 2018, the authors conduct univariate analyses and regression tests. Religiosity is measured by the number of religious adherents in the Metropolitan Statistical Areas of a firm’s headquarter location.

This study finds that religious firms disclose non-GAAP earnings more frequently compared to non-religious firms. This study further documents that religiosity is negatively associated with aggressive non-GAAP reporting. It also finds that items excluded by religious firms in calculating non-GAAP earnings are less associated with future performance, suggesting that these excluded items are transient and, thus, of higher quality. Finally, the market returns on unexpected non-GAAP earnings (i.e. earnings response coefficients) are greater for religious firms. Overall, the results of this study show that non-GAAP reporting by religious firms is more likely to be informative rather than opportunistic.

Despite the authors’ best endeavors, this study does not fully address the issue of endogeneity, and therefore, the results of this study must be interpreted as strong association rather than causation.

Religious social norms (regional level) can complement a firm’s corporate governance and ethical codes (firm level) by attenuating undesirable, opportunistic management practices. These findings should be informative to investors who assess the quality non-GAAP disclosures. The findings of this study are also relevant to regulators [e.g. the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)] when they allocate limited resources. The SEC may use less resources for monitoring firms headquartered in religious areas and apply the saved resources on monitoring riskier firms.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to show that religiosity may act as a potential monitoring mechanism that attenuates aggressive non-GAAP earnings and enhances the informativeness of non-GAAP. The findings of this study suggest that religious social norms (regional level) can complement a firm’s corporate governance and ethical codes (firm level) by restricting undesirable, opportunistic management practices.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the determinants of the increase in firms’ reporting of alternative pay measures in Pay for Performance disclosures and their role in subsequent Say on Pay approval.

This study explores the most common types of supplemental compensation disclosures used in Pay for Performance discussions using a hand-collected sample of S&P 500 proxy statements from 2012-2014. The sample compares key characteristics of firms reporting “pocketed” pay, “market-value” pay, and “peer comparison” percentile ranking pay compared to firms that do not use these alternatives.

Results suggest that firms use alternative pay measures in their Pay for Performance disclosures for different reasons. While “pocketed” pay reporters show characteristics of opportunistic disclosures and “peer comparison” reporters tend toward informative disclosure, there is often a significant positive impact of disclosing additional compensation information on Say on Pay approval when combating prior poor Say on Pay support. However, the effect seems most significant for peer comparisons, indicating the value of reporting comparative pay.

This study provides insights into the increasing use of alternative pay measures, and through these measures, identifies an additional mechanism of firms’ responses to Say on Pay votes. In addition, this study highlights the importance of standardized Pay for Performance disclosures to improve informativeness and comparability in financial reporting across firms. Finally, the study provides additional evidence of opportunistic disclosure by firms in order to preserve executive pay.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the association between institutional investor ownership and the compensation of executives at US banks during the financial crisis period.

This paper uses a linear regression model to examine the association between institutional ownership and the level of executive compensation at US banks.

Institutional investors influence executive compensation at banks with the impact being most pronounced for the CEO. Ownership by the top five investors is associated with greater total compensation. Active investors have the strongest impact on executive compensation as evidenced by a positive association between active ownership and both equity compensation and total compensation. As well, active ownership is negatively associated with bonus compensation. The paper also finds that passive and grey investors influence compensation but to a less significant extent than active investors.

The results suggest that the monitoring role of active and passive institutional investors is different in the banking industry. As well, institutional investors were likely a driving factor in shaping the compensation packages of the top executive team during the financial crisis period.

Stakeholders at banks should be aware that not all types of institutional investors act as effective monitors over issues such as controlling the amount of executive compensation paid to the highest paid executive, the CEO. Prospective investors should consider the type of institutional investor that owns large blocks of equity when making an investment decision. Namely, the interests of existing institutional investors may differ from their own interests.

This paper provides a new perspective on the monitoring roles played by different types of institutional investors. Furthermore, it provides a more comprehensive analysis by investigating the role of institutional investors in shaping the compensation packages of CEOs and other top executives including chief financial officers (CFOs) who play a vital role in risk management at banks.

In this paper, we review the literature on pay variation (e.g., pay dispersion, pay compression, pay range) in organizations. Pay variation research has increased markedly in the past two decades and much progress has been made in terms of understanding its consequences for individual, team, and organizational outcomes. Our review of this research exposes several levels-related assumptions that have limited theoretical and empirical progress. We isolate the issues that deserve attention, develop an illustrative multilevel model, and offer a number of testable propositions to guide future research on pay structures.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse how in recent years the rediscovery that extreme inequality is returning to advanced economies and has become widespread. What is at issue are the causes of this inequality. It is becoming clear that the wider population, particularly in Anglo-American economies have not shared in the growing wealth of the countries concerned, and that the majority of this wealth is being transferred on a continuous and systemic basis to the very rich. Corporate governance and the pursuit of shareholder value it is argued has become a major driver of inequality.

The current statistical evidence produced by leading authorities including the US Federal Reserve, World Economic Forum, Credit Suisse and Oxfam are examined. The policy of shareholder value and the mechanisms by which the distributions from business take place are investigated from a critical perspective.

While the Anglo-American economies are seeing a return to the extremes of inequality last witnessed in the 19th century, the causes of this inequality are changing. In the 19th century great fortunes often were inherited, or derived by entrepreneurs from the ownership and control of productive assets. By the late 20th century as Atkinson, Piketty and Saez (2011) and others have highlighted, the sustained and rapid inflation in top income shares have made a significant contribution to the accelerating rate of income and wealth inequality.

The intensification of inequality in advanced industrial economies, despite the consistent work of Atkinson and others, was largely neglected until the recent research of Picketty which has attracted international attention. It is now acknowledged widely that inequality is a serious issue; however, the contemporary causes of inequality remain largely unexplored.

The significance of inequality, now that it is recognized, demands policy and practical interventions. However, the capacity or even willingness to intervene is lacking. Further analysis of the debilitating consequences of inequality in terms of the efficiency and stability of economies and societies may encourage a more robust approach, yet the resolve to end extreme inequality is not present.

The analysis of inequality has not been neglected and this chapter represents a pioneering effort to relate the shareholder value orientation now dominant in corporate governance to the intensification of inequality.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of a particular firm’s stakeholder orientation, particularly employee orientation, on corporate communications with stakeholders concerning financial irregularities.

This study explores the impact of a particular firm’s stakeholder orientation, particularly employee orientation, on corporate communications with stakeholders concerning financial irregularities. Using a sample of 762 firm restatements, the authors separate their observations by disclosure transparency (high or low transparency of disclosure) and use logit regressions to examine whether companies with stronger employee orientation make more or less transparent restatement disclosures.

The findings show that higher levels of investment in employee orientation are associated with less transparent restatement disclosures. Further, examining a subsample of restatements in which managers may have greater discretion over how a restatement is disclosed confirms this finding. However, supplemental tests show that increased external monitoring may mitigate these effects.

The findings provide support that other stakeholders, such as shareholders, should weigh the potential pros/cons of management investments in corporate social responsibility (CSR). These concerns are more important now as firms continue to embrace a stakeholder-focused model of management which allocates resources to numerous stakeholder groups.

This paper extends the growing body of research that assesses the impact of CSR on firm outcomes (Kim et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2016; Hmaittane et al., 2019). Further, this paper contributes to the disclosure transparency literature by finding an association between CSR investment levels and the manner in which a firm discloses a restatement.