본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

CEO Duality 리더십과 기업성과와의 관계

CEO Duality Leadership and Firm Performance

김봉진
한국중소기업학회|2012.06|중소기업연구|제34권 제2호|pp. 67-80|DOI http://dx.doi.org/

2

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

DeregulationFirm Performance이사회구조Boards of DirectorsCEO Duality산업탈규제외부환경변화대기업과 중소기업Large Firms and SMEsExternal Environmental Change
주제분류경영학

초록

본 연구는 기업의 중요한 내부지배구조 시스템의 하나인 이사회의 리더십 구조가 기업성과에 미치는 영향을 고찰 하였다. 최고경영자가 이사회의장을 겸직하는 CEO Duality 리더십 구조가 기업성과에 미치는 영향에 대한 기존의 연구는 일관된 결과를 도출하지 못하였다. 이에 본 연구는 CEO Duality와 기업성과의 관계는 기업이 처한 외부환경에 따라 달라짐을 주장하며 대리인 이론과 집사 이론에 근거 하여 살펴보았다. 그 결과 산업의 탈규제로 인하여 외부 경쟁환경의 극심한 변화를 경험하는 기업집단에게서는 CEO Duality의 기업성과에 대한 영향은 부정적인 것으로 나타남을 확인 하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 특히 경쟁 환경의 불확실성에 영향을 비교적 많이 받고 있으며 이사회의장과 최고경영자의 분리가 이루어 지지 않고 있는 중소기업에게 시사하는 바가 큼을 보여 주고 있다.

Abstract

The board of directors is regarded as one of the most imperative governance mechanisms in both large firms and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Although clear differences between large firms and SMEs exist, for example, in the amount of disposable resources and in the relationship between shareholders and managers, there is agreement that the board of directors plays a paramount monitoring role in improving firm performance. In particular, CEO leadership in a board room is argued to significantly affect the board’s monitoring function. Unfortunately, empirical studies examining the relationship between CEO leadership (i.e., CEO duality) and firm performance are equivocal. Building on agency and stewardship theories, the present research highlights the environmental context in examining the relationship between CEO leadership and firm performance. Based on a longitudinal data of 156 firms from deregulated and non-deregulated contexts, the results demonstrate that CEO duality leads to lower performance of firms in the deregulated context, supporting agency predictions. This result has implications for SMEs. CEO duality has been acknowledged as a major problematic governance issue that touches all types of enterprises. Although this research has practical implications for both large and small and medium sized enterprises, in fact, our findings are more specific and relevant to the context of small and medium sized firms than that of large enterprises. It is so because the separation between control decisions and management decisions rarely exists in SMEs. That is, in SMEs where the main managerial and control functions are most frequently concentrated in the hands of controlling CEO and/or owner, the result underscores the vulnerable nature of CEO duality as a control mechanism to firm performance of SMEs in uncertain and turbulent environments. Changes in the environment cause more uncertainty in SMEs than in large companies since their resources for acquiring information about the market and changing the course of the enterprise are more limited. That is, small and medium sized enterprises are more susceptible to the effects of external environment changes. Given that SMEs are more subject to uncertain forces of environmental changes, the choice of a CEO duality leadership structure might be more detrimental to firm performance of SMEs as compared to large firms which are equipped with a more diverse set of governance mechanisms.

참고문헌 (80)

  1. Anderson, C. A, "The New Corporate Directors" (1986), John Wiley and Sons
  2. Baligar, B. R., "CEO duality and firm performance : What’s the fuss?", Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.41~53 (1996)
  3. Berg, S. V, "CEO and Board Chairman : A Quantitative Study of Dual vs. Unitary Board Leadership", Directors and Boards, 3, pp.34~49 (1978)
  4. Berle, A. A, "The Modern Corporation and Private Property" (1932), Commerce Clearing House
  5. Bethel, J. E, "The effects of ownership structure on corporate restructuring", Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp.15~31 (1993)
  6. Boyd, B. K., "Board control and CEO compensation", Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.335~344 (1994)
  7. Boyd, B. K., "CEO duality and firm performance : A contingency model", Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp.301~312 (1995)
  8. Brickley, J. A., "Leadership structure : Separating the CEO and chairman of the board", of Corporate Finance, 3, pp.189~220 (1997)
  9. Brockmann, E. N., "The impact of CEO duality and prestige on a bankrupt organization", Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, pp.178~196 (2004)
  10. Chaganti, R. S., "Corporate board size, composition and corporate failures in retailing industry", of Management Studies, 22, pp.401~417 (1985)
  11. Chen, Z., "Ownership concentration, firm performance, and dividend policy in Hong Kong", Pacific-BasinFinance Journal, 13, pp.431~449 (2005)
  12. Clarke, M. Z., "Geographic Deregulation of Banking and Economic Growth", Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 36, pp.929~942 (2004)
  13. Daily, C. M., "The relationship between board composition and leadership structure and bankruptcy reorganization outcomes", Journal of Management, 21, pp.1041~1056 (1995)
  14. Daily, C. M, "The relationship between governance structure and corporate performance in entrepreneurial firms", Journal of Business Venturing, 7 (1992)
  15. Daily, C. M, "Board of directors leadership and structure : Control and performance implications", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, pp.65~81 (1993)
  16. Daily, C. M, "Corporate governance and the bankrupt firm : An empirical assessment", Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.643~654 (1994)
  17. Daily C. M, "CEO and board chair roles held jointly or separately : Much ado about nothing?", Academy of Management Executive, 11, pp.11~20 (1997)
  18. Dalton, D. R., "Meta-Analytic Reviews of Board Composition, Leadership Structure, and Financial Performance", Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp.269~290 (1998)
  19. Davis, J. H., "Toward a stewardship theory of management", Academy of Management Review, 22, pp.20~47 (1997)
  20. Dayton, K. N., "Corporate governance : The other side of the coin", Harvard Business Review, 62, pp.34~37 (1984)
  21. Delmas, M., "Deregulation, governance structures, and efficiency : The U.S. electric utility sector", Strategic Management Journal, 26, pp.441~460 (2005)
  22. Donaldson, L, "Stewardship theory or agency theory : CEO governance and shareholder returns", Australian Journal of Management, 16, pp.49~64 (1991)
  23. Donaldson, L., "The ethereal hand : Organizational economics and management theory", Academy of Management Review, 15, pp.369~381 (1990)
  24. Donaldson, L., "In defense of organization theory, A reply to the critics" (1985), Cambridge University Press
  25. Ellstrand, A. E., "Board structure and international political risk", Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp.769~777 (2002)
  26. Fama, E. F, "Separation of ownership and control", Journal of Law and Economics, 26, pp.301~325 (1983)
  27. Finkelstein, S, "How much does the CEO matter? The role of managerial discretion in the setting of CEO compensation", Academy of Management Journal, 41, pp.179~199 (1998)
  28. Finkelstein, S, "CEO duality as a double-edged sword : How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command", Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp.1079~1108 (1994)
  29. Finkelstein, S, "Top-management- team tenure and organizational outcomes : The moderating role of managerial discretion", Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp.484~503 (1990)
  30. Gart, A., "Regulation, Deregulation, Reregulation : The Future of the Banking, Insurance, and Securities Industries" (1994), John Wiley and Sons Inc
  31. Gaver, J. J, "Compensation policy and the investment opportunity set", Financial Management, 24, pp.19~32 (1995)
  32. Glenn-Hubbard, R, "Executive pay and performance : Evidence from the U.S. banking industry", of Financial Economics, 38, pp.105~130 (1995)
  33. Goodstein, J, "The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change", Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.241~250 (1994)
  34. Grucia, T. S, "Regulatory change, constraints on adaptation and organizational failure : An empirical analysis of acute care hospitals", Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.345~363 (1994)
  35. Hambrick, D. C, "Managerial discretion : A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes, In Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.9", pp.369~406 (1987), JAI Press
  36. Helland, E., "Regulation and the evolution of corporate boards : Monitoring, advising, or window dressing?", The Journal of Law and Economics, 47, pp.167~161 (2004)
  37. Jensen, M. C, "Theory of the firm : Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure", Journal of Financial Economics, 3, pp.305~360 (1976)
  38. Joskow, P. L., "Regulation and Deregulation after25 Years : Lessons Learned for Research in IndustrialOrganization", Review of Industrial Organization, 26, pp.169~193 (2005)
  39. Judge, W. Q. J, "Antecedents and Effects of Outside Director’s Awareness of CEO Decision Style", Journal of Management, 21, pp.43~64 (1995)
  40. Judge, W. Q, "Corporate governance and firm performance in Russia : An empirical study", Journal of World Business, 38, pp.385~396 (2003)
  41. Kang E, "Board leadership structure and firm performance", Corporate Governance : An International Review, 13, pp.785~799 (2005)
  42. Kawaura, A., "Deregulation and governance : Plight of Japanese banks in the 1990s", Applied Economics, 36, pp.479~484 (2004)
  43. 김봉진, "Deregulatory forms, variations in the speed of governance adaptation, and firm performance", ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 30(2), pp.414~425, ACAD MANAGEMENT
  44. Kwon, K, "An impact of environmental adaptation and internal fit on the small and medium sized firm’s performance", Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business, 25, pp.127~153 (2003)
  45. 이호욱, "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Board Involvement in the Strategic Decision Making Process", 전략경영연구, 8(1), pp.1~20 (2005), 한국전략경영학회
  46. 이미순, "기업가 특성이 성장통에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증연구", 중소기업연구, 31(1), pp.35~49 (2009), 한국중소기업학회
  47. Levy, L., "Reforming board reform", Harvard Business Review, 59, pp.166~172 (1981)
  48. Lin, Y., "Corporate governance, leadership structure and CEO compensation : Evidence from Taiwan", Corporate Governance : An International Review, 13, pp.824~835 (2005)
  49. Mahon, J. F, "Strategic planning for regulated companies", Strategic Management Journal, 2, pp.251~262 (1981)
  50. Mallette, P, "Effects of board composition and stock ownership on the adoption of ‘poison pills’", Academy of Management Journal, 35, pp.1010~1035 (1992)
  51. Meyer, J., "Airline Deregulation, Auburn" (1981), Auburn House
  52. Mishra, C. S, "Board Independence and Compensation Policies in Large Bank Holding Companies", Financial Management, 29, pp.51~70 (2000)
  53. Mueller, G. C, "Upper echelons and board characteristics of turnaround and nonturnaround declining firms", Journal of Business Research, 39, pp.119~134 (1997)
  54. Nam, Y., "Understanding and consulting to family business boards", Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business, 22, pp.137~164 (2000)
  55. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)., "Regulatory reform in the UnitedStates", OECD, ~ (1999)
  56. Pearce, J. A, "Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective", Journal Management Studies, 29, pp.411~438 (1992)
  57. Pfeffer, J, "The external control of organizations : A resource dependency perspective" (1978), Harper and Row
  58. Philip, M., "Factors affecting business success of small and medium enterprises(SMEs)", Amity Global Business Review, 6, pp.119~136 (2011)
  59. Pi, L, "Corporate Control and Bank Efficiency", Journal of Banking and Finance, 17, pp.515~530 (1993)
  60. Rahman, R. A, "The effect of role duality on corporate performance in Malaysia", Corporate Ownership and Control, 2, pp.40~47 (2005)
  61. Rechner, P. L, "The Impact of CEO as Board Chairperson on Corporate Performance : Evidence vs Rhetoric", Academy of Management Executive, 3, pp.141~143 (1989)
  62. Rechner, P. L, "CEO duality and organizational performance : A longitudinal analysis", Management Journal, 12, pp.155~160 (1991)
  63. Reger, R. K, "Deregulation, strategic choice, risk and financialperformance", Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp.189~204 (1992)
  64. Simpson, W. G, "Board Structure, Ownership, and Financial Distress in Banking Firms", International Review of Economics and Finance, 8, pp.281~292 (1999)
  65. Singh, H, "Management-board relationships, takeover risk, and the adoption of golden parachutes", Academy of Management Journal, 32, pp.7~24 (1989)
  66. Smith, C. W, "The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend and compensation policy", Journal of Financial Economics, 32, pp.263~292 (1992)
  67. Sridharan, U. V, "CEO Duality in the Paper and Forest Products Industry", Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 10, pp.59~65 (1997)
  68. Sridharan, U. V, "The Effects of Organizational Stability and Leadership Structure on Firm Performance", Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, pp.469~484 (1998)
  69. Stoeberl, P. A, "Board efficiency and effectiveness, In Handbook for corporate directors, 12.1~12.10" (1985), McGraw Hill
  70. Tirtiroglu, D., "Deregulation, Intensity of Competition, IndustryEvolution, and the Productivity Growth of U.S.Commercial Banks", Journal of Money, Credit andBanking, 37, pp.339~360 (2005)
  71. Tosi, H. L, "CEO compensation monitoring and firm performance", Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp.1002~1016 (1994)
  72. Van Slyke, D. M., "Agents or stewards : How government manages its contracting relationships with nonprofit social service providers", Academy of Management Proceedings (2005)
  73. Vietor, R. H. K., "Strategic management in the regulatory environment" (1989)
  74. Vietor, R. H. K., "The hubris of regulated competition: Airlines, 1925~1988", pp.19~57 (1991), Universityof Michigan Press
  75. Vietor, R. H. K., "Contrived competition : Regulation and deregulation in America" (1994), Cambridge, MA
  76. Viscusi, W. K., "Economics of regulation and antitrust" (1995), MIT Press
  77. Ward, J., "Creating effective boards for private enterprises" (1992), Jossey-Bass
  78. Westphal, J. D, "Who shall govern? CEO", board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection, 1995, pp.40, 60~83
  79. Williamson, O. E., "The economic institutions of capitalism" (1985), New York Free Press
  80. Worrell, D. L., "One hat too many : Key executive plurality andshareholder wealth", Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp.499~507 (1997)

관련 논문AI추천

사외이사의 비중과 기업 인수합병 성과와의 관계: 최고경영자의 이사회 의장직 겸임에 의한 상호작용 효과김필수, 박영렬, 최순규한국벤처창업학회 · 벤처창업연구2015 · 제10권 제3호이사회와 최고 경영층의 관계적 요인이 기업성과에 미치는 영향김상훈, 김양민한국전략경영학회 · 전략경영연구2008 · 제11권 제1호경영자의 임기가 기업의 성과에 미치는 영향: 경영자 직무 요구의 조절효과를 중심으로김일경, 이호욱한국전략경영학회 · 전략경영연구2013 · 제16권 제1호한국의 기업지배구조 체계에서 최고경영자 교체에 대한 재벌의 역할박종훈, 성연달, 정무관한국전략경영학회 · 전략경영연구2010 · 제13권 제3호이사회의 독립성이 기업성과에 미치는 영향 : CEO의 기업 내 경력과의 상호작용효과에 대한 연구김광수, 유재욱대한경영정보학회 · 경영과 정보연구2008 · 제24호이사회 구조 및 독립성이 기업성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구이기은, 전무경한국기업경영학회 · 기업경영연구2013 · 제20권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

중소기업의 CSR 프로세스와 그 성공사례에 관한 연구박철, 강유리pp. 1-21한국모태펀드의 운용 현황과 투자 성과 분석박정서, 윤병섭pp. 23-46중소기업 정책자금 고용효과의 지속성 분석노용환, 주무현pp. 47-66중소기업의 기술경영 활동수준과 기술역량 및 기술혁신 애로요인간의 관계서종현, 박상문pp. 81-99
원문 보기