Studies into the impact of top manager change on organization performance have revealed inconsistent findings. Using longitudinal data over a 12-year period on football organizations, we test for the short-term and long-term effects of manager change in comparison to the tenures of incumbent top managers. We find that long incumbent tenures are associated with performance far above the average. But when looking at change events, contrary to theoretical expectations, we find that change in the short term leads to a brief reprieve in poor performance only for performance to deteriorate in the long term as underlying weaknesses once again take hold. Our findings reveal the illusion of a short-term reprieve and the long-term consequences of this illusion. We map several implications for research and practice from our work.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:In this paper we examine a comprehensive set of 2,499 UK IPOs launched between mid-1975 and the end of 2004. We find compelling evidence of long run under-performance that persists for between 36 and 60 months post-flotation, depending on the precise method chosen to measure abnormal returns. Following Schultz (2003), we ask whether our results are consistent with 'pseudo-timing'. Equally-weighted returns in calendar time provide further evidence of under-performance, a result that favours the Loughran and Ritter (2000) behavioural timing hypothesis rather than the Schultz (2003) pseudo-timing hypothesis. However, we show that this under-performance is concentrated in AIM and USM stocks. When we measure value-weighted returns in calendar time we find that abnormal returns are not significantly different from zero. Further analysis shows that, consistent with the findings of other studies, IPO under-performance is concentrated in smaller firms.