CEO IDEOLOGY AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE FOR SOCIAL ACTIVISTS

被引:203
作者
Briscoe, Forrest [1 ]
Chin, M. K. [2 ]
Hambrick, Donald C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Smeal Coll Business, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[2] Indiana Univ, Kelley Sch Business, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
关键词
ANTI-BIOTECH MOVEMENT; HIGH-RISK ACTIVISM; PRIVATE POLITICS; UPPER ECHELONS; POWER; GAY; MARKETS; DIVERSIFICATION; DISCRIMINATION; RESPONSIVENESS;
D O I
10.5465/amj.2013.0255
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
In an effort to comprehend activism toward corporations, scholars have proposed the concept of corporate opportunity structure, or the attributes of individual firms that make them more (or less) attractive as activist targets. We theorize that the personal values of the firm's elite decision makers constitute a key element of this corporate opportunity structure. We specifically consider the political ideology conservatism versus liberalism of the company's CEO as a signal for employees who are considering the merits of engaging in activism. To test of our theory, we examine the formation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employee groups in major companies in the period 1985-2004, when the formation of such roups was generally perceived to be risky for participants. Using CEOs' records of political donations to measure their personal ideologies, we find strong evidence that the political liberalism of CEOs influences the likelihood of activism. We also find that CEOs' ideologies influence activism more strongly when CEOs are more powerful, when they oversee more conservative (i.e., less liberal) workplaces, and when the social movement is in the early phase of development. We identify theoretical and practical implications, as well as future research opportunities.
引用
收藏
页码:1786 / 1809
页数:24
相关论文
共 111 条
[1]   Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values [J].
Agle, BR ;
Mitchell, RK ;
Sonnenfeld, JA .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 1999, 42 (05) :507-525
[2]  
Agresti A., 2002, CATEGORICAL DATA ANA
[3]  
[Anonymous], INSIDE OUT STRUGGLE
[4]  
[Anonymous], ANN M AC MAN SAN DIE
[5]   Why is there so little money in US politics? [J].
Ansolabehere, S ;
de Figueiredo, JM ;
Snyder, JM .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2003, 17 (01) :105-130
[6]   Strategic activism and non market strategy [J].
Baron, David P. ;
Diermeier, Daniel .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, 2007, 16 (03) :599-634
[7]   Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy [J].
Baron, DP .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, 2001, 10 (01) :7-45
[9]   Movements, Markets and Fields: The Effects of Anti-Sweatshop Campaigns on U.S. Firms, 1993-2000 [J].
Bartley, Tim ;
Child, Curtis .
SOCIAL FORCES, 2011, 90 (02) :425-451
[10]   The Employment Relationship and Inequality: How and Why Changes in Employment Practices are Reshaping Rewards in Organizations [J].
Bidwell, Matthew ;
Briscoe, Forrest ;
Fernandez-Mateo, Isabel ;
Sterling, Adina .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNALS, 2013, 7 (01) :61-121