An agency-based perspective on the performance consequences of COO adoption
The aim of this study is to explain the performance consequences of the adoption of a Chief Operating Officer (COO) position by drawing from agency theory. Although, prior research has documented a performance penalty associated with the use of this position, we currently have an incomplete understanding of the factors explaining this penalty. This study suggests that the delegation of CEO decision rights to the COO is explained by information transfer and agency considerations. Largely consistent with agency theory, our empirical analysis suggests information transfer considerations are related to the likelihood of COO adoption, while CEO ownership and board characteristics mitigate the related performance penalty. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Volume (Year): 39 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=102990|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Weisbach, Michael S., 1988. "Outside directors and CEO turnover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 431-460, January.
- Christie, Andrew A. & Joye, Marc P. & Watts, Ross L., 2003.
"Decentralization of the firm: theory and evidence,"
Journal of Corporate Finance,
Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 3-36, January.
- Demsetz, Harold & Lehn, Kenneth, 1985. "The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1155-77, December.
- Raheja, Charu G., 2005. "Determinants of Board Size and Composition: A Theory of Corporate Boards," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(02), pages 283-306, June.
- Raghuram Rajan & Julie Wulf, 2003.
"The Flattening Firm: Evidence from Panel Data on the Changing Nature of Corporate Hierarchies,"
NBER Working Papers
9633, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Raghuram G. Rajan & Julie Wulf, 2006. "The Flattening Firm: Evidence from Panel Data on the Changing Nature of Corporate Hierarchies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 759-773, November.
- Fee, C. Edward & Hadlock, Charles J., 2004. "Management turnover across the corporate hierarchy," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 3-38, February.
- Michael C. Jensen & William H. Heckling, 1995. "Specific And General Knowledge, And Organizational Structure," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 8(2), pages 4-18.
- Yermack, David, 1996. "Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 185-211, February.
- Marco Pagano & Ailsa A. Röell & Josef Zechner, 2002.
"The Geography of Equity Listing: Why Do Companies List Abroad?,"
Journal of Finance,
American Finance Association, vol. 57(6), pages 2651-2694, December.
- Marco Pagano & Ailsa A. Roell & Joseph Zechner, 1999. "The Geography of Equity Listing; Why Do Companies List Abroad?," CSEF Working Papers 28, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 01 Sep 2001.
- Pagano, Marco & Röell, Ailsa A & Zechner, Josef, 2001. "The Geography of Equity Listing: Why Do Companies List Abroad?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2681, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Shijun Cheng & John Evans & Nandu Nagarajan, 2008. "Board size and firm performance: the moderating effects of the market for corporate control," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 121-145, August.
- Coles, Jeffrey L. & Daniel, Naveen D. & Naveen, Lalitha, 2008. "Boards: Does one size fit all," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 329-356, February.
- Rosenstein, Stuart & Wyatt, Jeffrey G., 1990. "Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 175-191, August.
- M. Harris & C. H. Kriebel & A. Raviv, 1982. "Asymmetric Information, Incentives and Intrafirm Resource Allocation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 604-620, June.
- Linck, James S. & Netter, Jeffry M. & Yang, Tina, 2008. "The determinants of board structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 308-328, February.
- Canice Prendergast, 2002. "The Tenuous Trade-off between Risk and Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 1071-1102, October.
- Boone, Audra L. & Casares Field, Laura & Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Raheja, Charu G., 2007. "The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 66-101, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:rqfnac:v:39:y:2012:i:3:p:361-382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.