Files
Abstract
When a firm experiences a negative event, the board often changes the firms CEO to constrain negative reactions. Although research enriched in examining incoming CEOs characteristics, little is known about the crisis itself that incurs the boards inclination to the attributes. This study examines how different natures of infractions affect the selection of CEOs with specific political orientations. More precisely, I hypothesize that a board is more likely to appoint conservative CEOs following competence failures and liberal CEOs after integrity violations. I also hypothesize that outside evaluators will positively perceive the congruence between the nature of the crisis and the political orientation of the incoming CEO. These hypotheses are tested using a two-stage treatment effects model to correct for the potential endogeneity induced by omitted variables. Accordingly, this study contributes to the management literature by examining the antecedents that lead to the selection of CEOs with certain attributes.