Search results

This study aims to contribute to the academic disciplines of entrepreneurship and management by developing a new theory that explains Founder-CEOs’ succession in family and non-family firms. Many scholars failed to generate a specific theory to describe the succession of Founder-CEOs. Family firms remain complex enterprises comprising interconnectedness of cultural interests in which corporate governance occurs by families, Founder-CEOs and sometimes a board of directors.

This study’s design/methodology/approach reflects post-modernist epistemological and ontological perspectives for conducting systematic literature reviews. To identify relevant studies in the review, the several databases (Australian Business Dean’s Council Journal Quality List; EBSCO Database, including PsycINFO and Psych studies; Web of Science) and a mix of ranked journals from entrepreneurship, management and psychology were used.

The findings and results in this paper reflect the purpose, methodology and literature analysis culminating in 1,582 peer-reviewed studies. A total of 182 peer-reviewed studies met the criterion for review. Throughout the research process, a systematic literature review uncovered management literature gaps overlooked for decades during the theory-building process. Hence, developing a theory of Founder-CEOs succession used a combination of systematic, inductive, comparative and interactive approaches.

A Theory of Founder-CEOs Succession explains the strategic process of replacing a founder systematically. The promotion of, and incentives for, internal executives have been topics of great interest and deliberation among scholars and practitioners for a long time. This study contributes research implications for theory building in the academic disciplines of entrepreneurship and management by offering scholars and practitioners a theory that does not exist to describe Founder-CEOs’ succession encompassing both strategic successes and failures. By incorporating successes and failures, this study provides realistic reflections of Founder-CEOs.

Although founders are often replaced with external CEOs prior to firms making IPOs, firms that do retain founder CEOs generally perform better at IPO. However, this relationship may be contingent upon context. This study aims to investigate how national context influences the relationship between a founder CEO and IPO long-run performance. The authors hypothesize that founder-CEOs will perform better in IPO firms in countries where managerial discretion, future orientation, and the level of conformity to professionalize management are high, and uncertainty avoidance is low.

Using insights from the upper echelon and institutional theory, the authors used hierarchical linear modeling to analyze over 1,000 firms across eight countries.

Founder CEOs perform best in IPO firms in a national context where managerial discretion is low, uncertainty avoidance is high and the level of conformity is high.

This study contributes to a growing area of cross-national IPO research in management by investigating the relationship between culture, management and IPO performance.

In the context of a two-tier governance system, this study aims to investigate whether CEO overconfidence affects firm risk. In addition, this study examines the moderating role of the founder CEO on CEO overconfidence and firm risk.

This study uses a composite score index of CEO overconfidence with a sample of nonfinancial firms listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2019. It tests the research hypothesis with multiple linear regression analysis.

The findings indicate that CEO overconfidence reduces firm risk. In contrast, the founder CEO does not affect the relationship between CEO overconfidence and firm risk.

This study supports the upper echelon theory that argues that firms’ top management affects firms’ outcomes and behaviors.

The top management team heavily affects firms’ outcomes and behaviors in a two-tier governance system. Furthermore, firms’ selection policy of overconfident CEOs will be improved because these CEOs can diversify firm risks more effectively.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the role of the founder in the relationship between CEO overconfidence and firm risk.

This study aims to examine the impact of founder or descendant chief executive officers (CEOs) on the relationship between tax avoidance and firms' future risk. This issue is important because of an ongoing debate about founder and descendant CEOs' impacts, contributions and implications for firms.

This study uses a sample of publicly listed nonfinancial Indonesian firms in 2012–2019, most of which are family firms and adhere to a two-tier governance system that was understudied in previous studies. The authors use panel-random effect data regression for the statistical analysis.

The results demonstrate that founder or descendant CEOs do not affect the positive relationship between tax avoidance and firms' future risks.

This research supports the upper-echelon theory, arguing that top management teams affect firms' strategic policies and outcomes.

CEOs play weaker roles in countries with a two-tier governance system than in a one-tier one. Additionally, in relation to Hofstede's cultural dimensions, Indonesia has collective and feminist characteristics that emphasize elements of togetherness and group so that firms reflect the firms' top management teams and not only CEOs.

This research fills a research gap on the role of founder and descendant CEOs in the relationship between tax avoidance and firms' future risks by analyzing firms in Indonesia, a country with a two-tier governance system and collective and feminine cultural characteristics.

Researchers have investigated the distinctions between founder and nonfounder chief executive officers (CEOs) for different performance variables. Researchers have also investigated the use of media as supplemental information that investors review to make decisions about initial public offering (IPO) firms. Research that investigates founders and nonfounder CEOs of IPO firms in the media is limited but growing. This paper aims to explore how founder and nonfounder CEOs' narratives are portrayed differently in business media following an IPO.

Using insights from the narrative paradigm, 1,057 news paragraphs about CEOs from 19 matched pairs (38 firms) were content analyzed using a contrasting coding strategy.

Founders and nonfounders' narratives differ in three ways. Specifically, founder CEOs are more likely to (1) have their personal background detailed in the media, (2) translate technical business information to easy-to-understand general language and (3) be quoted talking about positive information than nonfounder CEOs.

The results of this study show the media's role in creating narratives about management and how the experiences of founders and nonfounders are represented differently in the media. The study is limited by only investigating media articles about CEOs and not investigating the entire organizational narrative.

This study adds to the growing literature that investigates the role the media plays in portraying management in the media at time of IPO.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how founders of family-controlled Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) under bounded rationality implement internal governance mechanisms that may affect the long-term performance once the founder retires. These actions create a hurdle for successors to follow the founder’s success.

The authors collected data on secondary sources of 36 family and 22 professionally managed REITs from 1999 to 2012 that resulted in an unbalanced panel data of 726 REIT-year observations. The authors use a series of multi-variate analyses to test the hypotheses.

The findings confirm that founders of family-controlled REITs focus more on developing internal governance mechanisms to satisfy their personal goals. Long-term performance is negatively affected once the successor takes over especially when the successor is a family member.

The authors have data limitations about family involvement. The authors suggest future avenues of investigation such as combining perceptual with archival data.

The authors expect that REIT managers and families can use the findings to develop viable and sustainable governance practices. Especially, being a publicly traded REIT implies to conform to the market expectations so there is a need to balance socio emotional wealth preservation with financial goals.

The authors frame the paper on transaction cost economics and contribute to the literature by stating that the dominance of founders of family-controlled REITs are more aligned to keep the business under family control once the founder retires.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the relationship between founder-chief executive officers (CEOs) and firm performance. Specifically, the paper explores two opposing arguments on the performance implications of founder-CEO leadership. The first theoretical perspective argues that founder-CEOs positively contribute to firm performance since they bring passion, vision, and external legitimacy to the organization. The contrary resource-based perspective, argues that while founder-CEOs help in the early years of the firm, they become less effective as the firm evolves into a complex bureaucracy since they lack the necessary managerial skills.

In order to test these perspectives, the paper develops a matched sample of 82 US manufacturing firms and compared their performance using both accounting and market-based measures. Independent sample t-tests and analysis of variance were used to empirically test the opposing predictions. Data were obtained from the Mergent Online database as well as official proxy filings of sample firms.

The results of the data analysis indicate that there is a statistically significant performance difference between founder-led and non-founder led firms. Such performance difference is especially evident when the paper focusses on accounting-based firm performance measures such as return on assets and return on investment. Surprisingly, founder-led firms performed worse than those led by non-founder CEOs. The follow-up analysis indicates a significant difference in age and size among sample firms led by founders and non-founders such that founder-led firms tend to be younger and smaller in size.

Unlike other studies in the literature that found a strong positive impact of founder-CEOs, the findings of the study provided empirical support for the resource-based explanation of founder-CEO impact on firm performance. Specifically, the findings reported here contribute to understanding the role of founder-CEOs in the context of executive succession, strategy selection as well as organizational evolution.

This study makes original contribution to the on-going research on strategic leadership by exploring the performance effect of founder-CEOs and the corresponding alternative theoretical explanations. In addition, the inclusion of both accounting and market-based (Tobin's Q) dependent variables provide a broader measure of firm financial performance.

This study aims to investigate how three critical governance decisions by foreign firms impacted their survivability post-initial public offerings (IPO): the choice of CEO (founder vs non-founder); the power the founder CEO wields relative to the board in terms of CEO duality; and board size.

This study uses data from 86 foreign firms that completed IPOs in the US market between 2000 and 2008 and adopts a Cox proportional hazards model to examine how the founder, founder CEO duality and board size influence foreign firm delisting post-IPO.

A founder CEO or a founder CEO with duality (i.e. when a founder CEO is also chair of the board of directors) does not support a foreign firm’s survival post-IPO. Expectedly, board size has a negative impact on post-IPO firm survivability; however, founder CEO duality positively moderates this negative relationship. Therefore, founder CEO duality plays a positive indirect role in the context of post-IPO firms with large boards.

First, while the benefits of CEO duality have been empirically ambiguous, this study clarifies how founder CEO duality manifests its positive impacts in foreign listings. Second, by focusing on board cognition, this study confirms the negative impact of large boards, but highlights that this can be mitigated by governance leadership structure. Finally, despite organizational life-cycle theorists’ advocacy of the replacement of founder CEOs with professional CEOs in sizable ventures, this study shows the benefits of their retention when the board is large.

This study aims to examine the impact of controversial governance practices on media coverage under a specific context. Based on the attribution theory, this study develops a theoretical framework to explore how antecedent factors can influence attribution process under a particular cultural context.

This paper presents a behavioral view of the media and corporate governance to demonstrate how media attributes different reasons for the same controversial governance practice in Chinese-specific context. Using 1,198 non-state-owned listed company observations in China as the study sample, cross-section data are used to build a multiple linear regression mode to test hypotheses.

The analysis indicates that the media imposes fewer penalties on founder-CEO firms than on non-founder-CEO firms for engaging in controversial governance practices, such as CEO compensation. CEO tenure negatively moderates the effect of CEO compensation on negative media coverage in non-founder-CEO firms. The positive media bias evidence for founder-CEO firms exists only when the firm is better performed.

This study’s contribution to the governance literature starts with its logical reasoning of basic assumptions in the agency theory, and that media penalty will arise when managers impose actions that against interests of shareholders or other stakeholders. This study shows that the rule is not always true. The findings also bridge the connection of governance literature and reputation literature to better explain how media can act as a social arbitration role.

This study provides insights into how belief and information of reputational evaluators affect attribution consequences on controversial governance practices. Moreover, this study looks beyond the internal elements and focuses on China’s traditional cultural context as well. Specifically, the authors concentrate on the attribution process by showing the importance of evaluators’ framing tendency with regard to controversial practices. The results extend the knowledge about how conformity makes media coverage shows a bias effect on interactions during the evaluation process.

This paper investigates the role of the founder CEO and board independence in shaping the way in which Indian and Italian family firms (FFs) pursue international growth via two modes, that is exports and FDI. This article claims that country's context matters in determining the relationship between the presence of the founder CEO and FFs' extent of exports and extent of FDI. Further, this article examines the moderating role of board independence on the above-mentioned founder CEO–FF's international growth relationship.

Using a fixed-effect panel data method, this article tests the hypotheses on a sample of 1,275 Indian FF-year observations and 705 Italian FF-year observations over the period 2008–2015.

This article reveals that the presence of a founder CEO is positively associated with the extent of exports but negatively associated with the extent of FDI in Italian firms. However, in case of Indian firms, the presence of the founder CEO is negatively associated with the extent of exports as well as with the extent of FDI. This founder CEO's influence on the firm's international growth is mitigated by the presence of an independent board in Italian firms; however, this moderation is not significant in the case of Indian firms.

It is important to capture heterogeneity within family firms and across institutional contexts while studying family firms' international growth. Further, it is important for international business scholars to theorize for different modes of international growth because challenges faced in expansion via exports are different from the challenges faced in expansion via FDI (foreign subsidiaries). Therefore, family firms leadership might prefer a certain mode of international growth.

The findings of the study imply that national culture and institutional context could play an important role in determining (a) Founder CEO's inclination towards FF's extent of exports and FDI as well as (b) the effectiveness of an independent board in mitigating founder CEO's influence on FF's international growth.

This work is one of the very few studies that examines the impact of FF's heterogeneity and country heterogeneity on two modes of international growth, namely exports and FDI, in the Indian and Italian contexts. Further, this work provides empirical evidence on the independent board's role in mitigating founder CEO's influence in decision making in the case of Italian firms. Extant literature expects an independent board to encourage FFs' international growth both via exports and FDI; this study shows that independent boards could reduce the founder CEO's inclination towards exports and mitigate founder CEO's influence on the decision making; however, this mitigation effect is highly context dependent.