Hierarchical Inconsistency: A Monitoring Mechanism to Reduce Securities Fraud in Emerging Markets

References

• Acharya AG, Pollock T (2021) Too many peas in a pod? How overlaps in directors’ local and global status characteristics influence board turnover in newly public firms. Acad. Management J. 64(5):1472–1496.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ainsworth S, Cox JW (2003) Families divided: Culture and control in small family business. Organ. Stud. 24(9):1463–1485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Albrecht C, Holland D, Malagueño R, Dolan S, Tzafrir S (2015) The role of power in financial statement fraud schemes. J. Bus. Ethics 131(4):803–813.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson RC, Reeb DM (2004) Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(2):209–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arena MP, Ferris SP, Unlu E (2011) It takes two: The incidence and effectiveness of co-CEOs. Financial Rev. 46:385–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bai F, Ho GCC, Yan J (2020) Does virtue lead to status? Testing the moral virtue theory of status attainment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 118(3):501–531.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banalieva ER, Eddleston KA, Zellweger TM (2015) When do family firms have an advantage in transitioning economies? Toward a dynamic institution-based view. Strategic Management J. 36:1358–1377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucus MS (1994) Pressure, opportunity, and predisposition: A multivariate model of corporate illegality. J. Management 20(4):699–721.Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Smart L, Boden JM (1996) Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psych. Rev. 103(1):5–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beasley MS (1996) An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. Accounting Rev. 71(4):443–465.Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Hays NA (2012) Status conflict in groups. Organ. Sci. 23(2):323–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Johnson S, Samphantharak K, Schoar A (2008) Mixing family with business: A study of Thai business groups and the families behind them. J. Financial Econom. 88(3):466–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bird M, Zellweger T (2018) Relational embeddedness and firm growth: Comparing spousal and sibling entrepreneurs. Organ. Sci. 29(2):264–283.Link, Google Scholar
• Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF (1998) Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 75(1):219–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen S (2010) The role of ethical leadership vs. institutional constraints: A simulation study of financial misreporting by CEOs. J. Bus. Ethics 93:33–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen G, Firth M, Gao DN, Rui OM (2006) Ownership structure, corporate governance, and fraud: Evidence from China. J. Corporate Finance 12:424–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Kellermanns FW, Chang EPC (2007) Are family managers agents or stewards? An exploratory study in privately held family firms. J. Bus. Res. 60:1030–1038.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chung CN, Luo XR (2013) Leadership succession and firm performance in an emerging economy: Successor origin, relational embeddedness, and legitimacy. Strategic Management J. 34:338–357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Krishnamoorthy G, Wright AM (2002) Corporate governance and the audit process. Contemporary Accounting Res. 19(4):573–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cumming D, Leung TY, Rui O (2015) Gender diversity and securities fraud. Acad. Management J. 58(5):1572–1593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daboub AJ, Rasheed AMA, Priem RL, Gray D (1995) Top management team characteristics and corporate illegal activity. Acad. Management Rev. 20(1):138–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Cremer D, Van Dijk E (2005) When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 35:553–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunkelberg J, Jessup DR (2001) So then why did you do it? J. Bus. Ethics 29:51–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunn P (2004) The impact of insider power on fraudulent financial reporting. J. Management 30(3):397–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durand R, Kremp PA (2016) Classical deviation: Organizational and individual status as antecedents of conformity. Acad. Management J. 59(1):65–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eddleston KA, Kellermanns FW, Sarathy R (2008) Resource configuration in family firms: Linking resources, strategic planning and technological opportunities to performance. J. Management Stud. 45(1):26–50.Google Scholar
• Erickson JM, Pugh WM, Gunderson EK (1972) Status congruency as a predictor of job satisfaction and life stress. J. Appl. Psych. 56(6):523–525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farber DB (2005) Restoring trust after fraud: Does corporate governance matter? Accounting Rev. 80(2):539–561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fast NJ, Gruenfeld DH, Sivanathan N, Galinsky AD (2009) Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psych. Sci. 20(4):502–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fei X (2013) From the Soil (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, Shanghai, China).Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S, D’aveni RA (1994) CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Acad. Management J. 37(5):1079–1108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Free C, Murphy PR (2015) The ties that bind: The decision to co-offend in fraud. Contemporary Accounting Res. 32(1):18–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gersick K, Davis J, McCollom M, Lansberg I (1997) Generation to Generation: Life Cycles of the Family Business (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA).Google Scholar
• Goffman IW (1957) Status consistency and preference for change in power distribution. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 22(3):275–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomez-Mejia LR, Cruz C, Berrone P, De Castro J (2011) The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):653–707.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greer LL, Caruso HM, Jehn KA (2011) The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decision Processing 116:116–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guthrie D (2006) China and Globalization: The Economic, Political, and Social Transformation of Chinese Society (Routledge, London, UK).Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Cannella AA Jr (2004) CEOs who have COOs: Contingency analysis of an unexplored structural form. Strategic Management J. 25:959–979.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Management Rev. 9(2):193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Han JH, Pollock T (2021) The two towers (or somewhere in between): The behavioral consequences of positional inconsistency across status hierarchies. Acad. Management J. 64(1):86–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harris J, Bromiley P (2007) Incentives to cheat: The influence of executive compensation and firm performance on financial misrepresentation. Organ. Sci. 18(3):350–367.Link, Google Scholar
• He J, Huang Z (2011) Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Acad. Management J. 54(6):1119–1139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoetker G (2007) The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management J. 28:331–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jackson EF (1962) Status consistency and symptoms of stress. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 27(4):469–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen M, Wang P (2018) Not in the same boat: How status inconsistency affects research performance in business schools. Acad. Management J. 61(3):1021–1049.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeong Y, Siegel JI, Chen SYP, Newey WK (2020) A recentering approach for interpreting interaction effects from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models. Strategic Management J. 41:2072–2091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khanna V, Kim EH, Lu Y (2015) CEO connectedness and corporate fraud. J. Finance 70(3):1203–1252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kolb TM, Straus MA (1974) Marital power and marital happiness in relation to problem-solving ability. J. Marriage Family 36(4):756–766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krause R, Priem R, Love L (2015) Who’s in charge here? Co-CEOs, power gaps, and firm performance. Strategic Management J. 36:2099–2110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krause R, Li W, Ma X, Bruton GD (2019) The board chair effect across countries: An institutional view. Strategic Management J. 40(10):1570–1592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Le Breton-Miller I, Miller D, Bares F (2015) Governance and entrepreneurship in family firms: Agency, behavioral agency and resource-based comparisons. J. Family Bus. Strategy 6:58–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Le Breton-Miller I, Miller D, Lester RH (2011) Stewardship or agency? A social embeddedness reconciliation of conduct and performance in public family businesses. Organ. Sci. 22(3):704–721.Link, Google Scholar
• Lenski GE (1954) Status crystallization: A non-vertical dimension of social status. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 19(4):405–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Z (2014) Mutual monitoring and corporate governance. J. Banking Finance 45(1):255–269.Google Scholar
• Loughry ML, Tosi HL (2008) Performance implications of peer monitoring. Organ. Sci. 19(6):876–890.Link, Google Scholar
• Luo XR, Chung CN (2013) Filling or abusing the institutional void? Ownership and management control of public family businesses in an emerging market. Organ. Sci. 24(2):591–613.Link, Google Scholar
• Ma J, Khanna T (2016) Independent director’s dissent on boards: Evidence from listed companies in China. Strategic Management J. 37:1547–1557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marquis C, Lee M (2013) Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large U.S. firms. Strategic Management J. 34:483–497.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marr JC, Thau S (2014) Falling from great (and not-so-great) heights: How initial status position influences performance after status loss. Acad. Management J. 57(1):223–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McEvily B, Soda G, Tortoriello M (2014) More formally: Rediscovering the missing link between formal organization and informal social structure. Acad. Management Ann. 8(1):299–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I, Scholnick B (2008) Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses. J. Management Stud. 45(1):51–78.Google Scholar
• Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I, Lester RH, Cannella AA (2007) Are family firms really superior performers? J. Corporate Finance 13(5):829–858.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morand DA (1995) The role of behavioral formality and informality in the enactment of bureaucratic vs. organic organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 20(4):831–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morris MW, Podolny J, Sullivan BN (2008) Culture and coworker relations: Interpersonal patterns in American, Chinese, German, and Spanish divisions of a global retail bank. Organ. Sci. 19(4):517–532.Link, Google Scholar
• Morrison KR, Fast NJ, Ybarra O (2009) Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 45:204–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ndofor HA, Wesley C, Priem RL (2015) Providing CEOs with opportunities to cheat: The effects of complexity-based information asymmetries on financial reporting fraud. J. Management 41(6):1774–1797.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nielsen BB, Nielsen S (2013) Top management team nationality diversity and firm performance: A multilevel study. Strategic Management J. 34:373–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nock SL (1988) The family and hierarchy. J. Marriage Family 50(4):957–966.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park SH, Westphal JD (2013) Social discrimination in the corporate elite: How status affects the propensity for minority CEOs to receive blame for low firm performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(4):542–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patel PC, Cooper D (2014) Structural power equality between family and non-family TMT members and the performance of family firms. Acad. Management J. 57(6):1624–1649.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perry EL, Kulik CT, Zhou J (1999) A closer look at the effects of subordinate-supervisor age differences. J. Organ. Behav. 20:341–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pitesa M, Thau S (2013) Compliant sinners, obstinate saints: How power and self-focus determine the effectiveness of social influences in ethical decision making. Acad. Management J. 56(3):635–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podmore D, Chaney D (1974) Family norms in a rapidly industrializing society: Hong Kong. J. Marriage Family 36(2):400–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prato M, Kypraios E, Ertug G, Lee YG (2019) Middle-status conformity revisited: The interplay between achieved and ascribed status. Acad. Management J. 62(4):1003–1027.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qian C, Cao Q, Takeuchi R (2013) Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management J. 34:110–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qian C, Wang H, Geng X, Yu Y (2017) Rent appropriation of knowledge-based assets and firm performance when institutions are weak: A study of Chinese publicly listed firms. Strategic Management J. 38:892–911.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rediker KJ, Seth A (1995) Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms. Strategic Management J. 16(2):85–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryan TP (2008) Modern Regression Methods (John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sawaoka T, Hughes BL, Ambady N (2015) Power heightens sensitivity to unfairness against the self. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 41(8):1023–1035.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scheepers D, Ellemers N (2005) When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 41:192–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schulze WS, Lubatkin MH, Dino RN (2003) Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Acad. Management J. 46(2):179–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schulze WS, Lubatkin MH, Dino RN, Buchholtz AK (2001) Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organ. Sci. 12(2):99–116.Link, Google Scholar
• Schwass J, Hillerström H, Kück H, Lief C (2011) Wise Wealth: Creating It, Managing It, Preserving It (Palgrave Macmillan, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi W, Connelly BL, Hoskisson RE (2017) External corporate governance and financial fraud: Cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory prescriptions. Strategic Management J. 38:1268–1286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stellar JE, Willer R (2018) Unethical and inept? The influence of moral information on perceptions of competence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 114(2):195–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suh I, Sweeney JT, Linke K, Wall JM (2020) Boiling the frog slowly: The immersion of C-suite financial executives into fraud. J. Bus. Ethics 162:645–673.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tost LP (2015) When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the power”? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility. Res. Organ. Behav. 35:29–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tost LP, Gino F, Larrick RP (2013) When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Acad. Management J. 56(5):1465–1486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzun H, Szewczyk SH, Varma R (2004) Board composition and corporate fraud. Financial Anal. J. 60(3):33–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vardi Y, Wiener Y (1996) Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organ. Sci. 7(2):151–165.Link, Google Scholar
• Villalonga B, Amit R (2006) How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? J. Financial Econom. 80:385–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang P, Jensen M (2019) A bridge too far: Divestiture as a strategic reaction to status inconsistency. Management Sci. 65(2):859–878.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang H, Qian C (2011) Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Acad. Management J. 54(6):1159–1181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang X, Fan G, Yu J (2017) Marketization Index of China’s Provinces: NERI Report 2016 (Social Sciences Academic Press, Beijing, China).Google Scholar
• Wang JC, Markóczy L, Sun SL, Peng MW (2019) She’-E-O compensation gap: A role congruity view. J. Bus. Ethics 159(3):745–760.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Welbourne TM, Balkin DB, Gomez-Mejia LR (1995) Gainsharing and mutual monitoring: A combined agency-organizational justice interpretation. Acad. Management J. 38(3):881–899.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wellman N, Mayer DM, Ong M, DeRue DS (2016) When are do-gooders treated badly? Legitimate power, role expectations, and reactions to moral objection in organizations. J. Appl. Psych. 10(6):793–814.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Welsh DT, Ordóñez LD, Snyder DG, Christian MS (2015) The slippery slope: How small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions. J. Appl. Psych. 100(1):114–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Stern I (2006) The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51:169–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (2013) A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):607–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2015) Control function methods in applied econometrics. J. Human Resources 50(2):420–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yiu DW, Wan WP, Xu Y (2019) Alternative governance and corporate financial fraud in transition economies: Evidence from China. J. Management 45(7):2685–2720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yiu DW, Xu Y, Wan WP (2014) The deterrence effects of vicarious punishments on corporate financial fraud. Organ. Sci. 25(5):1549–1571.Link, Google Scholar
• Zahra SA, Priem RL, Rasheed AA (2005) The antecedents and consequences of top management fraud. J. Management 31(6):803–828.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zelner B (2009) Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models. Strategic Management J. 30:1335–1348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao W, Zhou X (2011) Status inconsistency and product valuation in the California wine market. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1435–1448.Link, Google Scholar
• Zorn ML, Shrophshire C, Martin JA, Combs JG, Ketchen DJ Jr (2017) Home alone: The effects of lone-insider boards on CEO pay, financial misconduct, and firm performance. Strategic Management J. 38:2623–2646.Crossref, Google Scholar