Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:21:56.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Identification All the Same? The Differential Effects of CEO and CFO Organizational Identification on Corporate Philanthropy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2021

Yuehua Xu Open the ORCID record for Yuehua Xu [Opens in a new window] ,
Wei Shi ,
Xin Qin ,
Junsheng Zhang  and
Xiaojian Tang
Yuehua Xu
Affiliation:
Shandong University, China
Wei Shi
Affiliation:
University of Miami, USA
Xin Qin
Affiliation:
Sun Yat-sen University, China
Junsheng Zhang
Affiliation:
Sun Yat-sen University, China
Xiaojian Tang*
Affiliation:
Nanjing Agricultural University, China Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, China
*
Corresponding author: Xiaojian Tang ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By integrating role theory and social identity theory, this study examines the differential effects of organizational identification of the chief executive officer (CEO) and the chief financial officer (CFO) on corporate philanthropy. We argue that CEO organizational identification can positively affect corporate philanthropy, whereas the opposite holds for CFO organizational identification. This is because the CEO and the CFO have varying attitudes about corporate philanthropy owing to their different role expectations; thus, those who identify strongly with their organizations would act for the best interests of the firm. Moreover, because the beliefs of top executives are probably influenced by those of other executives, we further explore the interaction between the CEO and the CFO. We propose that the positive influence of CEO organizational identification on corporate philanthropy will be weakened by CFO organizational identification, and the moderating effect of CFO organizational identification will become stronger when the CEO and the CFO have opposite genders or when the CFO has ownership. From a sample of 880 publicly traded firms in China, we found support for our hypotheses. Our study can contribute to the corporate philanthropy literature and research on executive organizational identification by highlighting the importance of executive roles and their interactions.

摘要

基于角色理论和社会认同理论，我们提出CEO和CFO组织认同对企业慈善捐赠会有不同的影响。我们预期，CEO组织认同会增进企业慈善捐赠，而CFO组织认同则会抑制企业慈善捐赠。这是由于CEO和CFO的角色期望不同，以至于他们对企业慈善捐赠的看法也不同，而当他们强烈认同自己组织时，他们会以自己认为的对公司最有利的方式行事。此外，由于高管对慈善捐赠的看法可能会受到其他高管的影响，我们进一步探讨CEO与CFO之间的互动关系。我们预期CEO组织认同对企业慈善捐赠的积极影响将会被CFO组织认同弱化；而且当CEO与CFO为异性或者CFO持股较高时，CFO组织认同的调节效应会更强。基于880家中国上市公司样本，我们证实了以上假设。总体上，我们的研究强调了高管角色及其互动的重要性，以此深化了企业慈善捐赠文献和组织认同的相关研究。

Аннотация

На основе соединения теории ролей и теории социальной идентичности, данное исследование изучает различное влияние организационной идентификации главного исполнительного директора (CEO) и главного финансового директора (CFO) на корпоративную благотворительность. Мы утверждаем, что организационная идентификация генерального директора может положительно влиять на корпоративную благотворительность, тогда как в случае организационной идентификации финансового директора справедливо обратное. Это связано с тем, что генеральный директор и финансовый директор по-разному относятся к корпоративной благотворительности из-за разных ролей; таким образом, те, кто прочно отождествляет себя с организацией, будут действовать в интересах компании. Более того, поскольку на убеждения высшего руководства, вероятно, влияют мнения других руководителей, мы дополнительно исследуем взаимодействие между генеральным директором и финансовым директором. Мы предполагаем, что положительное влияние организационной идентификации генерального директора на корпоративную благотворительность будет ослаблено организационной идентификацией финансового директора, а регулирующее влияние организационной идентификации финансового директора станет сильнее в том случае, если генеральный директор и финансовый директор разного пола или если финансовый директор имеет право собственности. На основании выборки из 880 акционерных компаний открытого типа в Китае, мы подтвердили наши гипотезы. Наша работа может внести свой вклад в научную литературу о корпоративной благотворительности и исследования по организационной идентификации руководителей, подчеркивая важность исполнительных ролей и их взаимодействия.

Resumen

Al integrar la teoría de roles con la teoría de la identidad social, este estudio examina los efectos diferenciales de la identificación organizacional en el director general (CEO) y en director financiero (CFO) en la filantropía corporativa. Argumentamos que la identificación organizacional del director general puede afectar positivamente la filantropía corporativa, mientras que lo contrario ocurre con la identificación organizacional del director financiero. Esto se debe a que el director general y el director financiero tienen actitudes diferentes sobre la filantropía corporativa debido a sus diferentes expectativas de role; por consiguiente, aquellos quienes se identifican fuertemente con sus organizaciones actuarían a favor de la empresa. Por otra parte, debido a que las creencias de los altos ejecutivos son probablemente influenciadas por aquellas de otros ejecutivos, exploramos más a fondo la interacción entre el director general y el director financiero. Proponemos que la influencia positiva del director general en la identificación organizacional sobre la filantropía corporativa se verá debilitada por la identificación organizacional del director financiero, y el efecto moderador de la identificación organizacional del director financiero será mayor cuando el director general y el director financiero tengan géneros opuestos o cuando el director financiero sea propietario. De una muestra de 880 empresas que cotizan en bolsa en China, encontramos apoyo para nuestras hipótesis. Nuestro estudio puede contribuir a la literatura sobre filantropía corporativa y la investigación sobre la identificación organizacional de los ejecutivos al resaltar la importancia de los roles de los ejecutivos y sus interacciones.

Keywords

CEOCFOcorporate philanthropyexecutive rolesorganizational identification组织认同企业慈善捐赠CEOCFO高管角色главный исполнительный директор (CEO)главный финансовый директор (CFO)корпоративная благотворительность, исполнительные ролиорганизационная идентификацияDirector GeneralCEODirector FinancieroCFCfilantropía corporativaroles ejecutivosidentificación organizacional
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 73 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Jianjun Zhang

References

REFERENCES

Abernethy, M. A., Bouwens, J., & Kroos, P. 2017. Organization identity and earnings manipulation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 58: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression, testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. 2001. Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. In Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts: 31–48. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 472–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, T. A., Lopez, T. J., Reitenga, A. L., & Ruch, G. W. 2018. The influence of CEO and CFO power on accruals and real earnings management. Review of Quantitative Finance & Accounting, 52(4): 1–21.Google Scholar
Biddle, B. J. 1979. Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Biddle, B. J. 1986. Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1): 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, B. J. 2013. Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boeker, W. 1992. Power and managerial dismissal: Scapegoating at the top. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3): 400–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivie, S., Lange, D., McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. 2011. Me or we: The effects of CEO organizational identification on agency costs. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 551–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braendle, U. C., Gasser, T., & Noll, J. 2005. Corporate governance in China: Is economic growth potential hindered by guanxi? Business & Society Review, 110(4): 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2005. Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1): 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5): 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. 2000. Research design and issues of validity. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology: 3–16. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: 389–444. Boston: Allyn Bacon.Google Scholar
Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. 2006. Corporate governance and firm valuation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(4): 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. O., Helland, E., & Smith, J. K. 2006. Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(5): 855–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannella, A. A. Jr., & Holcomb, T. R. 2005. A multi-level analysis of the upper-echelons model. In Dansereau, F. & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.), Multi-level issues in strategy and methods: 195–237. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannella, A. A. Jr., & Shen, W. 2001. So close and yet so far: Promotion versus exit for CEO heirs apparent. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 252–270.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6): 749–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3): 268–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3): 351–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Huber, G. P. 1999. Determinants of executive beliefs: Comparing functional conditioning and social influence. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8): 763–790.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chava, S., & Purnanandam, A. 2010. CEOs versus CFOs: Incentives and corporate policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 97(2): 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., Sun, Z., Tang, S., & Wu, D. 2011. Government intervention and investment efficiency: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(2): 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, J. G., Ketchen, D., Perryman, A. A., & Donahue, M. S. 2010. The moderating effect of CEO power on the board composition–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8): 1299–1323.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J. 1999. Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Conroy, S., Henle, C. A., Shore, L., & Stelman, S. 2017. Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2): 184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, Z., Liang, X., & Lu, X. 2014. Prize or price? Corporate social responsibility commitment and sales performance in the Chinese private sector. Management and Organization Review, 11(1): 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuypers, I. R. P., Koh, P. S., & Wang, H. 2015. Sincerity in corporate philanthropy, stakeholder perceptions and firm value. Organization Science, 27(1): 173–188.Google Scholar
Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2006. What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2): 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, C., Qiu, Y., & Deng, K. 2003. On the transformation and development trend of CFO function. New Accounting (Chinese), 7: 12–14.Google Scholar
Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R., & Parks, J. M. 1998. The dark side of organizational identification. In Whetten, D. A., & Godfrey, P. C. (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations: 245–256. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. 1984. Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4): 735–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falcione, R., Sussman, L., & Herden, R. 1987. Communication climate in organisations. In Jablin, F. (Eds.), Handbook of organisational communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. The separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, M., Ge, W., Luo, S., & Shevlin, T. 2011. Why do CFOs become involved in material accounting manipulations? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(1–2): 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. Jr. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flammer, C., & Kacperczyk, A. 2019. Corporate social responsibility as a defense against knowledge spillovers: Evidence from the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8): 1243–1267.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1970, September 13. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 122: 32–33.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J. 1997. An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979–81, 1987–89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. 2015. Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3): 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerth, H. H., & Wright Mills, C. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giannetti, M., Liao, G., & Yu, X. 2015. The brain gain of corporate boards: Evidence from China. The Journal of Finance, 70(4): 1629–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. 1996. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3): 370–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4):777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granlund, M., & Lukka, K. 1998. Towards increasing business orientation: Finnish management accountants in a changing cultural context. Management Accounting Research, 9(2): 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, N., Jenkins, G. D., & Beehr, T. A. 1983. Employee gender, gender similarity, and supervisor-subordinate cross-evaluations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8(2): 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habib, A., & Hossain, M. 2013. CEO/CFO characteristics and financial reporting quality: A review. Research in Accounting Regulation, 25(1): 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, U. C. V. 1991. Corporate contributions as managerial masques: Reframing corporate contributions as strategies to influence society. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5): 485–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. 2004. CEOs who have COOs: Contingency analysis of an unexplored structural form. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10): 959–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., Humphrey, S. E., & Gupta, A. 2015. Structural interdependence within top management teams: A key moderator of upper echelons predictions. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3): 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T., Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P. 2006. Sticking to our guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to faltering organizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5): 607–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, H., & Brown, A. D. 2013. Organizational identity and organizational identification: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Group & Organization Management, 38(1): 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. 1995. A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4): 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoitash, R., Hoitash, U., & Johnstone, K. M. 2012. Internal control material weaknesses and CFO compensation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(3): 768–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, M., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. 2012. Political considerations in the decision of Chinese SOEs to list in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(1): 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, W., & Coffey, B. S. 1992. Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10): 771–778.Google Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. 2014. Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3): 371–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange, D., Boivie, S., & Westphal, J. D. 2015. Predicting organizational identification at the CEO level. Strategic Management Journal, 36(8): 1224–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. 2015. Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5): 1049–1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennox, C. S., Francis, J. R., & Wang, Z. 2012. Selection models in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 87(2): 589–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Song, X., & Wu, H. 2015. Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate philanthropy in China: A strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2): 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, K. J., Tan, J., Zhao, L., & Karim, K. 2015. In the name of charity: Political connections and strategic corporate social responsibility in a transition economy. Journal of Corporate Finance, 32: 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linton, R. 1936. The study of man: An introduction. Oxford: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Louis, M. R. 1980. Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2): 226–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2): 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Lee, M. 2013. Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large U.S. firms. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4): 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinsey Company. 2017. Shaping the future: Solving social problems through business strategy. Available from URL: http://www.mckinsey.com.cn/insightsGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1973. A new look at the chief executive's job. Organizational Dynamics, 1(3): 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mobbs, S. 2013. CEOs under fire: The effects of competition from inside directors on forced CEO turnover and CEO compensation. Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 48(3): 669–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, A., & Kraussl, R. 2011. Doing good deeds in times of need: A strategic perspective on corporate disaster donations. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9): 911–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. 1994. Political dynamics and the circulation of power: CEO succession in U.S. industrial corporations, 1960–1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2): 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. 2020. A short history of the CEO role. IQ Insigniam Quarterly, Spring: 68–71.Google Scholar
Qian, C., Gao, X., & Tsang, A. 2015. Corporate philanthropy, ownership type, and financial transparency. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4): 851–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raes, A. M., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. 2011. The interface of the top management team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 102–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L. 1989. Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4): 745–772.Google Scholar
Sharma, R., & Jones, S. 2010. CFO of the future: Strategic contributor or value adder? Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 8(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Shaw, M. E., & Costanzo, P. R. 1982. Theories of social comparison, judgment, and perception. Theories of Social Psychology: 259–291.Google Scholar
Shi, W., Zhang, Y., & Hoskisson, R. 2019. Examination of CEO-CFO social interaction through language style matching: Outcomes for the CFO and the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2): 383–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, R. T. 1982. High-status group members as exemplars: A summary of field research on the relationship of status to congruence conformity. Small Group Behavior, 13(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stryker, S., & Statham, A. 1985. Symbolic interaction and role theory. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: 311–378, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. 1978. Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations: 61–76. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1985. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7–24. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Tang, Y., Mack, D. Z., & Chen, G. 2018. The differential effects of CEO narcissism and hubris on corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5): 1370–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. 2015. How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1338–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulimieri, P., & Banai, M. 2010. A new corporate paradigm: The CEO and CFO–a partnership of equals. Organizational Dynamics, 39(3): 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R. 1978. The role and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 84(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4): 769–780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waller, M. J., Huber, G. P., & Glick, W. H. 1995. Functional background as a determinant of executives' selective perception. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4): 943–974.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Choi, J., & Li, J. 2008. Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science, 19(1): 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J., & Coffey, B.S. 1992. Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10): 771–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 2013. A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 607–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfolds, S. E., & Siegel, J. I. 2019. Misaccounting for endogeneity: The peril of relying on the Heckman two-step method without a valid instrument. Strategic Management Journal, 40(3): 432–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., An, R., & Zhong, Q. 2019. Anti-corruption, government subsidies, and investment efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Research, 12(1): 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Xu, Y., Chen, H., & Jing, R. 2020. Corporate philanthropy after fraud punishment: An institutional perspective. Management and Organization Review, 16(1): 33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, D., & Chen, G. 2015. Narcissism, director selection, and risk-taking spending. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13): 2075–2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorn, D. M. 2004. Here a chief, there a chief: The rise of the CFO in the American firm. American Sociological Review, 69(3): 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar