Suchergebnisse

AbstractManuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueDoes the ownership structure of a firm, specifically the aggregation of the different ownership types within each firm, relate with the composition of its board?Research Findings/InsightsUsing archival data from a sample comprising 1,487 U.S. firms, we find that the composition of the individual profiles of directors on corporate boards (i.e., independent, affiliated, or insider) match a firm's aggregated ownership configuration (institutional, corporate parent, family‐entrepreneur control) even after parsing out the impact of CEO characteristics, firm size, and performance. Further analyses elaborate on the specific relationship between each director profile and ownership types present within the firm.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThis study builds upon three conceptual perspectives: agency, resource dependency, and behavioral. We argue that each type of ownership has differing imperatives and may prefer different types of directors to fulfill their governance needs. The paper illustrates that the relationship between corporate governance, specifically board composition, and ownership is a comprehensive phenomenon that is best understood through multiple theoretical lenses.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThis study shows that ownership and board composition are not substitutable governance mechanisms as commonly understood, but might be complementary mechanisms. A finding that governance mechanisms are complementary implies that regulatory or institutional pressures to modify board composition with the addition of directors with similar profiles may affect the governance in unforeseen ways.

Purpose
This study aims to test Mattingly and Berman's (2006) taxonomy of social actions and develops divergent expectations for corporate social responsibility (CSR) dimensions directed toward institutional and technical stakeholders, with an aim to determine when CSR directed to different stakeholders is most likely to improve corporate reputation.


Design/methodology/approach
A longitudinal sample of 285 major US corporations was used to quantitatively test the hypotheses. Data was sourced from KLD, Osiris and Fortune MAC.


Findings
Strengths in CSR and actions directed toward technical stakeholders influence corporate reputation in a more profound way, when compared to those directed toward institutional stakeholders. Contrary to the authors' prediction, institutional concerns do not demonstrate a significant growth or reduction over the five-year period.


Research limitations/implications
This study provides a longitudinal test of Mattingly and Berman's (2006) taxonomy of CSR actions and makes an important methodological contribution by operationalizing CSR not as a continuum from strengths to concerns, rather as two distinct constructs.


Practical implications
Management practice can benefit from a more fine-grained approach to stakeholder expectations and reputation outcomes. The results of this study leverage relevant stakeholder impact while allowing firms to appreciate the change in CSR actions and to measure it accordingly, such that the undesirable status quo that leads to potential loss in reputation growth can be avoided.


Social implications
As organizations explore ways to effectively engage stakeholders for mutual benefit, this research shows how firms can have a positive impact.


Originality/value
This study tests and extends theory through an integrated lens, built on the stakeholder and resource dependence theories, while directing management attention to the broader reputational outcomes of targeted CSR initiatives. It provides justification for CSR investments over time.

This research expands the study of political skill, a construct developed in North America, to other cultures. We examine the psychometric properties of the Political Skill Inventory (PSI) and test the measurement equivalence of the scale in a non-American context. Respondents were 1511 employees from China, Germany, Russia, Turkey, and the United States. The cross-cultural generalizability of the construct is established through consistent evidence of multi-group invariance in an increasingly stringent series of analyses of mean and covariance structures. Overall, the study provides systematic evidence that political skill can be treated as a stable construct among diverse cultural groups. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate that translated PSI measures operationalize the construct similarly. With some exceptions, the item loadings and intercepts are invariant for the US and non-US responses, suggesting partial measurement equivalence. After verifying the accuracy of item translation, we conclude that any differences can be explained by variation in the cultural value of uncertainly avoidance and cultural differences on a low-to-high context continuum. Detected dissimilarities are addressed, and some suggestions regarding the correct use across borders of the instrument by managers and researchers are provided.

This article contributes to the literature on cross-cultural leadership by describing the development and validation of the Leadership Effectiveness in Africa and the Diaspora (LEAD) Scale. The LEAD Scale is a culturally sensitive measure of leadership effectiveness in the understudied settings of Africa and the African diaspora. A combination of methods and four studies using samples from Africa and the African diaspora based in Canada, the USA, and the Caribbean were used to develop the measure. Using the grounded theory approach and the Delphi technique ( n = 192), followed by a set of increasingly rigorous tests including exploratory factor analysis ( n = 441), confirmatory factor analysis ( n = 116), and a test of measure invariance ( n =1384), we developed and validated a culturally sensitive measure of effective leadership. Our results demonstrate that spirituality, tradition and community-centredness are important and culturally specific components of leadership in Africa and the African diaspora. This paper provides a validated measure of leadership and offers recommendations regarding the use of the measure by managers and researchers working in Africa or with African diaspora.