Research Summary In this study, we investigate the effect of chief executive officer (CEO) humility on firm's market performance. We argue and find that firms with more humble CEOs will have better market performance but not because they actually perform better but, rather, because they benefit from an expectation discount in the market. Specifically, we show that, all else equal, financial analysts announce lower earnings per share expectations for firms with more humble CEOs. This expectation discount sets the stage for those firms to meet or beat analysts' expectations resulting in improved market performance for firms with humble CEOs. We find support for our ideas with a sample of Standard & Poor's (S&P) 500 CEOs, operationalizing CEO humility with a videometric technique. Managerial Summary In this study, we investigate the effect of CEO humility on firm's market performance. We show that firms with more humble CEOs will outperform other firms in the market because financial analysts tend to set lower market expectations for firms with more humble CEOs increasing the probability that they will outperform those expectations. Rather counterintuitively, these firms do not have better market performance because they perform better but because they face lower expectations. Ultimately, the study demonstrates the importance of CEO characteristics for external evaluations and perceptions about the firm with significant effects on investment performance.

In this study, we build on upper echelons theory and insights from psychology to suggest that CEO Machiavellianism is manifested in the alliance behaviors of family firms. Specifically, we argue that more Machiavellian chief executive officers (CEOs) seek out strategic alliances—as doing so provides opportunities to manipulate, control, and exploit others—and that their tendency toward manipulative and controlling behaviors results in less sustainable alliances. We also argue that the effect of CEO Machiavellianism on the engagement and sustainability of strategic alliances is affected by operating in family firms. Since the owning family often intervenes and mitigates any concerns regarding the organization or its leadership, we argue that any concerns that alliance partners have regarding more Machiavellian CEOs will be weaker as family ownership increases; as such, we argue that as family ownership increases, the positive relationship between CEO Machiavellianism and strategic alliance engagement will be more strongly positive while the negative relationship between CEO Machiavellianism and alliance sustainability will be less strongly negative. Our study presents and tests a theory of how more Machiavellian CEOs affect the decisions surrounding strategic alliances by providing a novel antecedent of the decisions surrounding strategic alliances in family firms. We find support for our arguments with a sample of Standard & Poor’s 500 firms.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract