Research

This study investigates the repercussions faced by directors due to investor dissent, with a particular focus on the influence of ownership, notably family ownership. Employing the issue salience framework, we posit that family ownership negatively impacts the perception of dissent's salience and the evaluation of its overall benefits. Consequently, family firms exhibit lower rates of director turnover compared to their non-family counterparts. We further hypothesize that, in instances of heightened dissent levels, family firms perceive committee turnover as a more suitable response. Additionally, we argue that compared to non-family firms, family firms experience increased director turnover in the presence of high governance concerns and institutional investment, driven by the amplified negative implications of inaction. Our findings in general support these arguments, based on an analysis of a sample of US public firms from 2008 to 2018.

This study explores the relationship between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investor activism and women’s leadership. We theorize and empirically demonstrate that because of gender-based stereotypes, there are more female directors in the aftermath of ES-related but not G-related activism. Furthermore, our results show that independently of the activism’s nature, there are no incentives to increase women representation in the top management team (TFM). Our findings also reveal that, when owners prioritize non-financial goals, the negative evaluation of female-fit in leadership is mitigated, contributing to a higher participation of women leaders across all levels of the organization following both ES and G-type activism. This work provides important contributions to the interplay between ESG investor activism, gender diversity in leadership positions, and firm ownership’s influence. 

In this study we delve into a key driver of strategic silence in the aftermath of organizational wrongdoing. Drawing on psychological ownership research, we propose that leaders' heightened concern to avoid reputational losses and control lead them to engage in less restorative communication when the organization is exposed for more ESG controversies. We suggest, nonetheless, that when faced with more severe controversial situations, tendency to adopt strategic silence diminishes. We find support for these ideas using a sample of US firms from 2007-2020. Overall, our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the drivers and forms of responsiveness to organizational misconduct.