高管讲坛:社会运动后首席执行官社会政治活动的驱动力

IF 4.6 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Corporate Governance-An International Review Pub Date : 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1111/corg.12613
Keshab Acharya, Michael A. Abebe, Mark Kroll, Guadalupe Solano
{"title":"高管讲坛:社会运动后首席执行官社会政治活动的驱动力","authors":"Keshab Acharya, Michael A. Abebe, Mark Kroll, Guadalupe Solano","doi":"10.1111/corg.12613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research Question/IssueCEO sociopolitical activism seems to be on the rise in response to prominent social movements around social justice (e.g., Black Lives Matter), gender equality (e.g., #MeToo movement), and climate change (e.g., People's Climate Movement), to name a few. Engaging in such activism could be risky for executives, given its potential to appease some stakeholders while alienating others. This begs the question: Why do some CEOs become sociopolitical activists while others remain on the “sidelines”? This study addresses this question by exploring the notion of the executive “bully pulpit” and how CEOs leverage their status and reputation to publicly engage in sociopolitical activism.Research Findings/InsightsDrawing from the status and reputation literature, we explore the effect of CEO power, CEO celebrity status, and firm reputation as predictors of CEO sociopolitical activism. In doing so, we focus on the “bully pulpit” explanation by arguing that powerful, high‐status CEOs and those who lead firms with good reputations are more likely to use their professional position and visibility to advocate for or against controversial sociopolitical issues. Our analysis of CEO sociopolitical activism data from 246 matched‐pair S&P 500 firms from 2007 to 2020 largely supports our arguments, though we find there is an important interaction between firm reputation and both CEO power and celebrity.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThis study extends current research insights by highlighting how power, status, and reputation at the CEO and firm levels create a formidable platform (a “bully pulpit”) from which executive sociopolitical activism is exercised. Given its nascent nature, scholars are just beginning to empirically explore the consequences of CEO sociopolitical activism. This study contributes to ongoing work in this area by providing empirical evidence on the nature and drivers of CEO sociopolitical activism.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsFirms seeking to play a more proactive role in contemporary sociopolitical issues need to consider hiring high‐profile CEOs. Additionally, highly reputed firms are well‐positioned to support their CEOs' efforts in influencing societal debates on controversial issues.","PeriodicalId":48209,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Executive Bully Pulpit: Drivers of CEO Sociopolitical Activism in the Wake of Social Movements\",\"authors\":\"Keshab Acharya, Michael A. Abebe, Mark Kroll, Guadalupe Solano\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/corg.12613\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research Question/IssueCEO sociopolitical activism seems to be on the rise in response to prominent social movements around social justice (e.g., Black Lives Matter), gender equality (e.g., #MeToo movement), and climate change (e.g., People's Climate Movement), to name a few. Engaging in such activism could be risky for executives, given its potential to appease some stakeholders while alienating others. This begs the question: Why do some CEOs become sociopolitical activists while others remain on the “sidelines”? This study addresses this question by exploring the notion of the executive “bully pulpit” and how CEOs leverage their status and reputation to publicly engage in sociopolitical activism.Research Findings/InsightsDrawing from the status and reputation literature, we explore the effect of CEO power, CEO celebrity status, and firm reputation as predictors of CEO sociopolitical activism. In doing so, we focus on the “bully pulpit” explanation by arguing that powerful, high‐status CEOs and those who lead firms with good reputations are more likely to use their professional position and visibility to advocate for or against controversial sociopolitical issues. Our analysis of CEO sociopolitical activism data from 246 matched‐pair S&P 500 firms from 2007 to 2020 largely supports our arguments, though we find there is an important interaction between firm reputation and both CEO power and celebrity.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThis study extends current research insights by highlighting how power, status, and reputation at the CEO and firm levels create a formidable platform (a “bully pulpit”) from which executive sociopolitical activism is exercised. Given its nascent nature, scholars are just beginning to empirically explore the consequences of CEO sociopolitical activism. This study contributes to ongoing work in this area by providing empirical evidence on the nature and drivers of CEO sociopolitical activism.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsFirms seeking to play a more proactive role in contemporary sociopolitical issues need to consider hiring high‐profile CEOs. Additionally, highly reputed firms are well‐positioned to support their CEOs' efforts in influencing societal debates on controversial issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance-An International Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Governance-An International Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12613\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12613","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究问题/议题随着围绕社会正义(如黑人的生命)、性别平等(如 #MeToo 运动)和气候变化(如人民气候运动)等突出社会运动的兴起,高管的社会政治激进主义似乎正在兴起。对高管们来说,参与此类行动主义可能会有风险,因为它有可能在安抚某些利益相关者的同时疏远另一些利益相关者。这就引出了一个问题:为什么一些首席执行官会成为社会政治活动家,而另一些首席执行官却保持 "旁观 "态度?本研究通过探讨高管 "讲坛"(bully pulpit)的概念,以及首席执行官如何利用自身地位和声誉公开参与社会政治活动,来解决这一问题。在此过程中,我们将重点放在了 "恶霸讲坛 "的解释上,认为有权势、地位高的首席执行官和那些领导着声誉良好的公司的首席执行官更有可能利用他们的职业地位和知名度来倡导或反对有争议的社会政治问题。我们对 2007 年至 2020 年期间 246 家配对 S&P 500 强企业的首席执行官社会政治行动主义数据进行了分析,发现企业声誉与首席执行官的权力和知名度之间存在重要的互动关系,这在很大程度上支持了我们的论点。 理论/学术启示 本研究通过强调首席执行官和企业层面的权力、地位和声誉如何创造出一个强大的平台("讲坛"),从而使高管的社会政治行动主义得以实施,拓展了当前的研究视野。鉴于其新生性质,学者们才刚刚开始对首席执行官社会政治行动主义的后果进行实证探索。本研究通过提供有关 CEO 社会政治行动主义的性质和驱动因素的实证证据,为这一领域正在进行的工作做出了贡献。此外,声誉卓著的公司完全有能力支持其首席执行官努力影响社会对有争议问题的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Executive Bully Pulpit: Drivers of CEO Sociopolitical Activism in the Wake of Social Movements
Research Question/IssueCEO sociopolitical activism seems to be on the rise in response to prominent social movements around social justice (e.g., Black Lives Matter), gender equality (e.g., #MeToo movement), and climate change (e.g., People's Climate Movement), to name a few. Engaging in such activism could be risky for executives, given its potential to appease some stakeholders while alienating others. This begs the question: Why do some CEOs become sociopolitical activists while others remain on the “sidelines”? This study addresses this question by exploring the notion of the executive “bully pulpit” and how CEOs leverage their status and reputation to publicly engage in sociopolitical activism.Research Findings/InsightsDrawing from the status and reputation literature, we explore the effect of CEO power, CEO celebrity status, and firm reputation as predictors of CEO sociopolitical activism. In doing so, we focus on the “bully pulpit” explanation by arguing that powerful, high‐status CEOs and those who lead firms with good reputations are more likely to use their professional position and visibility to advocate for or against controversial sociopolitical issues. Our analysis of CEO sociopolitical activism data from 246 matched‐pair S&P 500 firms from 2007 to 2020 largely supports our arguments, though we find there is an important interaction between firm reputation and both CEO power and celebrity.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThis study extends current research insights by highlighting how power, status, and reputation at the CEO and firm levels create a formidable platform (a “bully pulpit”) from which executive sociopolitical activism is exercised. Given its nascent nature, scholars are just beginning to empirically explore the consequences of CEO sociopolitical activism. This study contributes to ongoing work in this area by providing empirical evidence on the nature and drivers of CEO sociopolitical activism.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsFirms seeking to play a more proactive role in contemporary sociopolitical issues need to consider hiring high‐profile CEOs. Additionally, highly reputed firms are well‐positioned to support their CEOs' efforts in influencing societal debates on controversial issues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.30%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: The mission of Corporate Governance: An International Review is to publish cutting-edge international business research on the phenomena of comparative corporate governance throughout the global economy. Our ultimate goal is a rigorous and relevant global theory of corporate governance. We define corporate governance broadly as the exercise of power over corporate entities so as to increase the value provided to the organization"s various stakeholders, as well as making those stakeholders accountable for acting responsibly with regard to the protection, generation, and distribution of wealth invested in the firm. Because of this broad conceptualization, a wide variety of academic disciplines can contribute to our understanding.
期刊最新文献
ESG Ratings and Dividend Changes: Evidence From the Initiation of Nonfinancial Agency Coverage Issue Information Government as a Source of Equity Capital for Entrepreneurs: Evidence From Entrepreneurial Exits The Role of Employee Ownership, Financial Participation, and Decision‐Making in Corporate Governance: A Multilevel Review and Research Agenda CEO Compensation Contracts in Family Versus Nonfamily Firms: The Use of Nonfinancial Performance Measures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1