Author
Listed:
- Pino G. Audia
(Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755)
- Horacio E. Rousseau
(College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306)
- Sebastien Brion
(IESE Business School, University of Navarra, 08034 Barcelona, Spain)
Abstract
Research shows that reference group selection underpins critical organizational processes, but less is known about publicly disclosed choices of reference groups, such as those for the evaluation of firm performance. Because audiences, such as investors and analysts, prefer reference groups created by independent entities they can trust, they disapprove of choices of custom peer groups created by reporting firms. Nevertheless, firms frequently choose reference groups that do not conform to audiences’ expectations. We seek to explain why firms deviate from these externally held standards even when incurring penalties by developing theory and formulating hypotheses about the influence of chief executive officer (CEO) power. Using data from 10-K filings, we find that firms led by high-power CEOs are more likely to use nonconforming, custom peer groups despite incurring penalties. However, the relationship between CEO power and the use of custom peer groups is weaker when CEOs face greater scrutiny from shareholders and analysts. We also find that low firm performance increases the use of custom peer groups among high-power CEOs. Contrary to our expectations, high CEO compensation attenuates the effect of CEO power on the choice of custom peer groups, arguably because high levels of CEO pay increase scrutiny. Although firms incur costs for using nonconforming reference groups, supplemental analyses reveal that CEOs benefit by receiving higher compensation, especially when performance is low. We conclude by discussing implications for research on publicly disclosed reference groups, the consequences of power, and information disclosure.
Suggested Citation
Pino G. Audia & Horacio E. Rousseau & Sebastien Brion, 2022.
"CEO Power and Nonconforming Reference Group Selection,"
Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 831-853, March.
Handle:
RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:2:p:831-853
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2020.1397
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:2:p:831-853. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.