Suchergebnisse

CEO duality describes the governance structure when a firm's chief executive officer also holds the position of chairman of the board. Duality is central to theoretical perspectives on corporate governance and top management, yet duality's relationship with numerous outcomes is characterized by nonsignificant coefficients and bivariate correlations hovering near zero. We argue and present evidence that CEO duality represents a "dummy construct"—an intentionally pejorative assessment on the widespread use of binomial categorical "dummy" variables to represent complex constructs. While we highlight CEO duality, the use of dummy variables as constructs is common in research. We review CEO duality as a construct and assess typical approaches to its measurement. When compared to actual patterns of duality within organizations, we find that current operationalizations are lacking due to a lack of attention to temporal considerations. This raises questions about the construct validity of current conceptualizations of CEO duality. Actual patterns suggest constructs and theoretical perspectives not previously considered. We present a taxonomy of CEO duality archetypes and offer suggestions on the incorporation of time for studies using dummy variables.

AbstractManuscript TypeArticle/ReviewResearch Question/IssueThis study presents the results of a longitudinal content analysis of governance articles published in both CGIR and other leading management outlets. Our aim with this review is to identify problematic areas, as well as opportunities to improve the methodological rigor of governance studies.Research Findings/InsightsWe examine key design aspects of corporate governance articles. We identify and compare trends (1) over time and (2) across publishing outlets. Specifically examined are the geographic scope of samples, design characteristics (i.e., single‐ versus multi‐year data, the use of archival, survey, experimental, and qualitative designs, data sources, and reliance on concurrent versus longitudinal data), survey response rates and the use of tests for non‐response bias, the statistical analysis techniques used, reporting of results (number and proportion of hypotheses supported, non‐significant, and counter‐significant, use of statistical power analysis, reporting of descriptive statistics and correlations, use and significance of control variables, and endogeneity controls), and the sophistication of the models tests (i.e., mediation and moderation).Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsBased on the results of the review, recommendations for academic researchers are offered in the following areas: (1) designing theoretical tests which both incorporate and go beyond main effects; (2) evaluating a research design's analytical parameters on an a priori basis to maximize reliability, validity, and the potential for publication; (3) incorporating assessment of sensitivity and robustness checks into the analysis; and (4) comprehensive reporting of results including post hoc power analysis, complete and expanded correlation matrix(es), reporting and assessing counter‐results, and avoiding HARKing.

This article proposes a pedagogical approach dedicated to help students develop personal ethical agency—the ability to make decisions that involve ethical dilemmas consistent with an individual's ethical standards and professional standards of practice. The approach presented involves a tripartite gathering of students, business executives, and faculty in discussions of cases embedded with ethical dilemmas. Sessions highlight ethical issues that closely correspond with core components from courses. The article provides a description of personal ethical agency, the developmental stages of the Walk the Talk program, and assessment of the program and concludes with plans for future program development and expansion.

AbstractManuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueWhile corporate governance research is the beneficiary of advances in research methodologies and statistical techniques, less attention has been placed on variable measurement. This paper draws into question the conceptualization and measurement of CEO duality by highlighting its largely unrecognized instability and the challenges instability imposes on measuring dichotomous variables. CEO duality is widely used in corporate governance research and frequently operationalized dichotomously as a dummy variable. We present examples of the frequent changes in duality within organizations which challenge our current view of CEO duality.Research Findings/InsightsWe find that the instability of CEO duality in practice varies considerably at both the national and within‐firm levels. We find that a mismatch exists between the current conceptualization of CEO duality, actual patterns of data, and the measures used by governance researchers. The paper draws attention to the limits of conceptualizing and measuring what is seemingly dichotomous data, reviews these in research and in practice, and provides examples, recommendations and assessments of alternate ways existing data can be used.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsOur results draw into question the reliance on a simple dichotomous conceptualization and operationalization of CEO duality in governance research. Data limitations of corporate governance research may be alleviated by directly assessing stability of duality within firms and reimagining concepts in ways that can be measured using existing data.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsCEO duality, a legal but discouraged governance structure, may be changed intentionally or result from a variety of temporary firm‐level factors. Assessing the longitudinal patterns in duality and underlying causes for temporary changes in duality should be incorporated into evaluations of firm governance structures.