Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of non-founder CEO succession on firms’ research and development (R&D) decision, and further explore its mechanism and economic consequences.

Using founders’ personal-level information of entrepreneurial firms in the Chinese growth enterprise market from 2009 to 2015, the authors empirically investigate whether firms can be motivated to launch more R&D activities as the result of switching to non-founder CEOs. The author’s further test the impact of non-founder CEOs on R&D output to distinguish their motivation. Moreover, the authors use stepwise regression to explore the mechanism and possible channels.

The authors find that R&D investment significantly increases in firms with non-founder CEOs and the R&D output that comes in the form of patent exhibits an upward trending in numbers, too, ruling out non-founder CEOs’ incentive to chase private benefits. Specifically, the authors find that non-founder CEOs can promote R&D investment through their more professional human capital and better internal control. The authors also show mitigating effects under different circumstances on the relationship between non-founder CEOs and R&D investment.

This study helps the authors to understand the impact of non-founder CEO succession on R&D investment in emerging markets. It also indicates that human capital of non-founder CEOs is critical in driving firms’ innovation, proposing policy suggestions to improve formal intermediary labor market of professional CEOs.

This study provides elaborate theoretical analysis and empirical tests on the mechanism and economic consequences of (non-)founders’ impact on R&D activities.

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 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 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.

Whether and when the innovation aspiration shortfall (e.g. innovation performance lower than aspirations) will affect emerging economy firms (EEFs)' international expansion remains an important unanswered theoretical and practical question.

Based on performance feedback theory, this study explores the impact of innovation aspiration shortfall on EEFs' international expansion and the moderating role of CEO origin.

This study finds that innovation aspiration shortfall has a positive impact on EEFs' international expansion. This study also uncovers that EEFs are less likely to implement international expansion in response to innovation aspiration shortfall when the CEO is a founder than when the CEO is a non-founder, and EEFs are more likely to implement international expansion in response to innovation aspiration shortfall when the CEO is an outsider-CEO than when the CEO is an insider-CEO.

This study proposes that the interaction between innovation aspiration shortfall and CEO origin can be a useful predictor of EEFs' international expansion.

The purpose of this paper is to extend governance research in the small business context by examining the moderating influence of top executive involvement on the board of directors on market valuation.

Drawing on a sample of initial public offering (IPO) high-tech firms engaged in late-stage funding, the study uses stepwise regression to test board involvement moderation effects.

Primary market investors reward governance structures that limit founder power.

The current study introduces the notion that optimal market valuation depends not only on whether a CEO-founder governs the firm, but also on level of involvement on the board of directors.

The interaction between evaluators is underestimated in legitimacy literature. This study aims to examine the impact of CEO celebrity on initial public offerings (IPOs) underpricing in Strategic Emerging Industries (SEIs). Based on legitimacy and limited attention effect, this study introduces a new antecedent to the asset pricing literature under a particular sample.

This paper illustrates how CEO celebrity promotes IPO underpricing by enhancing the legitimacy and then explores how the CEO characteristics can moderate this relationship. Using 1,128 IPO companies in China SEIs from 2010 to 2019, cross-section data is used to build a multiple linear regression model to test the hypotheses.

The result indicates that CEO celebrity is positively related to IPO underpricing. Founder CEO and CEO duality amplify the relationship. Further analysis shows that the relationship between CEO celebrity and IPO underpricing is more pronounced in firms with high Baidu search and low market sentiment.

This study provides insights into how CEO celebrity as notable internal information shapes the formation of investors' preliminary impressions of firms. The evidence consists of legitimacy and limited attention perspective by showing how investors favor, follow and hype the stocks with celebrity CEOs. The results extend the knowledge about how CEO characteristics influence information frictions in asset pricing during IPO.

The purpose of the research is to study how Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO’s) ownership, CEO’s structural and expertise power and underwriters’ reputation affect the initial public offering (IPO) lockup period.

The study uses the multivariate regression method to test the hypothesis on a sample of 1,071 US IPOs, which comprise 80 per cent of the total population of IPOs over the 1998-2002 period.

It was found that CEO equity ownership had a direct positive impact and two indicators of CEO positional power (CEO duality, founder status) and underwriter reputation had a direct negative impact on the length of the lockup period that results from IPO negotiations between the issuing firm and the underwriter. It was also found that underwriter reputation negatively moderates the impact of equity ownership (likely due to a substitution effect) and positively moderates the impact of CEO duality on lockup period length (by offsetting the impact of CEO positional power).

Previous studies have exclusively studied the affect of economic factors on IPO lockup. This paper extends the extant literature by studying the insider’s characteristics like CEO’s power and underwriter’s reputation on IPO lockup periods.

The purpose of this paper s to study the financing behavior of family firms (FF), as these differ from their small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) counterparts in their capital structure decision, mainly due to an increased risk aversion and the desire to maintain control over the firm.

A sample of 470 SMEs from a bank-based environment is examined for the period of 2005-2010. A dynamic panel data model is utilized to assess both the role of several capital structure determinants and the target-adjusting behavior for different subsamples of firms.

The results show that FF, whether controlled by founders or not, are relatively more leveraged. The aim to maintain long-term control and limited financing options and other factors seem crucial to the observed differences in leverage and dominate risk considerations associated with higher debt. Presumed differences in agency costs across generations do not drive capital structure decisions, as overall leverage does not differ between founder- and descendant-controlled family firms (FCFF and DCFF, respectively). Firms with a founder-chief executive officer (CEO), however, adjust faster to deviations from a target debt ratio. The effects of many proposed capital structure determinants differ across firm types, but are highly consistent with predictions from the pecking order theory.

Based on the results of this study, we suggest policy-makers in bank-based economies like Austria to strongly focus on mechanisms that facilitate the access to bank debt to ensure adequate allocation of finances to SMEs. This is especially important to stimulate growth and further innovation for the dominant group of FF, as they rely on debt the most to maintain family control.

This paper makes a novel contribution to the literature, as it combines an analysis of the capital structure of non-listed family firms (NFF) in a bank-based economy, the respective role of founder management, the dynamic adjustment to a presumed debt target and joint tests of capital structure theories.

Notwithstanding the relevance of managerial control systems (MCS) in any organization, as well the distinctive role they can play in family business, due to its specific features, the literature rarely dealt with the role and characteristics of MCS in family business. Taking into account previous contributions from different disciplines (organization, management accounting, and family business), the current work aims to better understand the state of the art about research in the field of MCS in family business in order to identify main research gaps and propose future research directions.

Forty-five articles have been analyzed, which were issued in 29 sources. Research findings show that the literature on MCS in family business is limited and not very conclusive. Some authors focused on the type of controls, other authors outlined the role of MCS in managerialization and the relation with professionalization. A few studies focused on some specific mechanisms, especially strategic planning and compensation. Some contributes dealt with MCS’ determinants and impacts. Differences between family and non-family firms were proposed. However, a clear and organized picture of the features of MCS in family firms, their determinants, and impacts has not yet been developed. Particularly, the impact of the distinctive features of family business on MCS represents an underdeveloped research field along with how MCS can be differently developed and used in different kinds of family firms. In the light of findings of the literature review, we propose a reference research framework on MCS in family business.