Revisiting the CEO Effect Through a Machine Learning Lens
Published Online:2 Apr 2025https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.03625
References
- (2020) Do CEOs matter? Evidence from hospitalization events. J. Finance 75(4):1877–1911.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2007) Inside the family firm: The role of families in succession decisions and performance. Quart. J. Econom. 122(2):647–691.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2003) Managing with style: The effect of managers on firm policies. Quart. J. Econom. 118(4):1169–1208.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2006) Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
- (2007) How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: A study of CEO effects in three countries. Strategic Management J. 28(8):767–789.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2021) Selecting directors using machine learning. Rev. Financial Stud. 34(7):3226–3264.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2014) The use of variance decomposition in the investigation of CEO effects: How large must the CEO effect be to rule out chance? Strategic Management J. 35(12):1839–1852.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2017) How much do CEOs really matter? Reaffirming that the CEO effect is mostly due to chance. Strategic Management J. 38(3):802–811.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2010) Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J. Statist. Software 33(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Management Rev. 9(2):193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2014) Toward more accurate contextualization of the CEO effect on firm performance. Strategic Management J. 35(4):473–491.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2009) The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, vol. 2 (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1970) Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12(1):55–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1972) Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 37(2):117–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2008) The effect of CEOs on firm performance. Strategic Management J. 29(12):1357–1367.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2010) Stability selection. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B Statist. Methodology 72(4):417–473.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2004) Feature selection, L1 vs. L2 regularization, and rotational invariance. Greiner R, Schuurmans D, eds. Proc. Twenty-First Internat. Conf. Machine Learn. (ACM, New York).Google Scholar
- (2017) Reaffirming the CEO effect is significant and much larger than chance: A comment on Fitza (2014). Strategic Management J. 38(3):793–801.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1998) Applied Regression Analysis: A Research Tool (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2010) Factorization machines. Webb GI, Liu B, Zhang C, Gunopulos D, Wu X, eds. 2010 IEEE Internat. Conf. Data Mining (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 995–1000.Google Scholar
- (1994) Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Acad. Management J. 37(5):1141–1166.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1977) Constraints on administrator discretion: The limited influence of mayors on city budgets. Urban Affairs Quart. 12(4):475–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1988) Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance? Admin. Sci. Quart. 33(3):388–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B Methodological 58(1):267–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2001) When does leadership matter? The contingent opportunities view of CEO leadership. HBS Working Paper No. 02-04, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
- (1978) Situational and leadership influences on organization performance. Acad. Management Proc., vol. 1978 (Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY), 230–234.Google Scholar
- (2005) Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B Statist. Methodology 67(2):301–320.Crossref, Google Scholar

