Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large U.S. firms

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 483-497

  Marquis, Christopher ^a   Lee, Matthew ^a  

^a HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

corporate social responsibility; gender; governance; leadership; organizational structure

Indexed keywords

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES (CSR); GENDER; GOVERNANCE; LEADERSHIP; ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES;

MANAGEMENT; MANAGERS;

INDUSTRY;

EID: 84874467725     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2028     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aggarwal RK, Nanda D,. 2004. Access, common agency, and board size, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=571801 (1 November 2010)
2. Andreoni J, Vesterlund L,. 2001. Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (1): 293-312.
3. Barbosa R,. 1985. Innovation in a mature industry. PhD diss., Columbia University: New York.
4. Barnett ML,. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 794-816.
5. Brammer S, Millington A,. 2005. Corporate reputation and philanthropy: an empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 61 (1): 29-44.
6. Capek MES. 2001. 'Women and philanthropy: old stereotypes, new challenges (Volume 1).' from Women's Funding Network. Available at http://www.wfnet.org/ news/story.php?story-id=48 (1 November 2010.
7. Catalyst. 1996-2006 (various years). Census of women corporate officers and top earners. Catalyst: New York.
8. Catalyst. 1996-2007 (various years). Catalyst census of women board directors of the Fortune 500. Catalyst: New York.
9. Cavicchio C, Turok J,. 2008. The 2008 corporate contributions report. Conference Board: New York.
10. Center for Women's Business Research (formerly National Foundation for Women Business Owners). 1999. Business women of achievement are independent philanthropists: members of women's business group are substantial givers. Press release, 12 November.
11. Chandler AD,. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
12. Chatterjee A, Hambrick DC,. 2007. It's all about me: narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (3): 351-386.
13. Child J., 1973. Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 18 (2): 168-185.
14. Coady M., 2008. Giving in Numbers: 2008 Edition. Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy: New York.
15. Conry JC,. 1998. Gender and pay equity in the fundraising workforce: implications for practice and policy. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising 1998 (19): 73-92.
16. Davis GF,. 2005. New directions in corporate governance. Annual Review of Sociology 31 (1): 143-162.
17. Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB,. 2009. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly 54 (3): 413-452.
18. Ely R, Padavic I,. 2007. A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of Management Review 32 (4): 1121-1143.
19. Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC,. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (3): 484-503.
20. Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC, Cannella AA Jr., 2009. Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. Oxford University Press: New York.
21. Fombrun CJ,. 1996. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
22. Foundation Center. 1997-2007. National Directory of Corporate Giving. The Center: New York.
23. Foundation Center,. 2009. Key Facts on Corporate Giving. The Center: New York.
24. Friedman M,. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine 13 September: 32-33, 122, 124, 126.
25. Galaskiewicz J., 1985. Social Organization of an Urban Grants Economy: A Study of Business Philanthropy and Nonprofit Organizations. Academic Press: Orlando, FL.
26. Galaskiewicz J., 1997. An urban grants economy revisited: corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979-81, 1987-89. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 445-471.
27. Goodstein J, Gautam K, Boeker W,. 1994. The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal 15 (3): 241-250.
28. Greening DW, Turban DB,. 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society 39 (3): 254-280.
29. Gujarati DN,. 2003. Basic Econometrics. McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.
30. Hambrick DC,. 2007. Upper echelons theory: an update. Academy of Management Review 32 (2): 334-343.
31. Hambrick DC, Abrahamson E,. 1995. Assessing managerial discretion across industries: a multimethod approach. Academy of Management Journal 38 (5): 1427-1441.
32. Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S,. 1987. Managerial discretion: a bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. In Research in Organizational Behavior (Volume 9), Cummings LL, Staw B, (eds). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT; 369-406
33. Hambrick DC, Fukutomi GDS,. 1991. The seasons of a CEO's Tenure. Academy of Management Review 16 (4): 719-742.
34. Hambrick DC, Mason PA,. 1984. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 9 (2): 193-206.
35. Jensen MC,. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2): 235-256.
36. Kacperczyk A., 2009. With greater power comes greater responsibility? Takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal 30 (3): 261-285.
37. Kamas L, Preston A, Baum S,. 2008. Altruism in individual and joint-giving decisions: What's gender got to do with it? Feminist Economics 14 (3): 23-50.
38. Kilduff M, Angelmar R, Mehra A,. 2000. Top management-team diversity and firm performance: examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science 11 (1): 21-34.
39. Kinsley ME,. 2008. Creative Capitalism: A Conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Other Economic Leaders. Simon & Schuster: New York.
40. Konrad AM, Kramer V, Erkut S,. 2008. Critical mass: the impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics 37 (2): 145-164.
41. Margolis JD, Walsh JP,. 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2): 268-305.
42. Marquis C, Davis GF, Glynn MA,. Forthcoming. Golfing alone? Corporations, elites and nonprofit growth in 100 American communities. Organization Science. Published online before print: doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0717
43. Marquis C, Glynn MA, Davis GF,. 2007. Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review 32: 925-945.
44. Mesch DJ,. 2009. Women and philanthropy: a literature review. Working paper 4/09. The Center on Philanthropy, IUPUI, Indianapolis, IN. Available at: http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/files/file/women-and-philanthropy
45. Miller D., 1991. Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Science 37 (1): 34-52.
46. Mizruchi MS,. 1996. What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 271-298.
47. Navarro P., 1988. Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business 61 (1): 65-93.
48. Nutt PC,. 1986. Decision style and strategic decisions of top executives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 30 (1): 39-62.
49. Pfeffer J., 1981. Power in Organizations. Pitman: Marshfield, MA.
50. Pfeffer J, Salancik GR,. 1974. Organizational decision making as a political process: the case of a university budget. Administrative Science Quarterly 19 (2): 135-151.
51. Pondy LR,. 1969. Effects of size, complexity, and ownership on administrative intensity. Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (1): 47-60.
52. Porter ME, Kramer MR,. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review 80 (12): 56-69.
53. Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N,. 2003. Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science 49 (3): 290-311.
54. Salamon LM,. 1987. Partners in public service: the scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, Powell WW, (ed). Yale University Press: New Haven, CT; 99-117.
55. Sen S, Bhattacharya CB,. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2): 225-243.
56. Siegfried JJ, McElroy KM, Biernot-Fawkes D,. 1983. The management of corporate contributions. In Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy: An Annual Compilation of Research (Volume 5)., Preston LE, (ed). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT; 87-102.
57. Useem M,. 1984. The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Politics in the U.S. and U.K. Oxford University Press: New York.
58. Useem M, Kutner SI,. 1986. Corporate contributions to culture and the arts: the organization of giving and the influence of the chief executive officer and of other firms on company contributions in Massachusetts. In Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts: Studies in Mission and Constraint., DiMaggio PJ, (ed). Oxford University Press: New York; 93-112.
59. van Knippenberg D, Dawson JF, West MA, Homan AC,. 2011. Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human Relations 64 (3): 307-336.
60. Wang H, Choi J, Li J,. 2008. Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science 19 (1): 143-159.
61. Webb NJ,. 1994. Tax and government policy implications for corporate foundation giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23 (1): 41-67.
62. Weisbrod BA,. 1998. The nonprofit mission and its financing: growing links between nonprofits and the rest of the economy. In To Profit or Not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector, Weisbrod BA, (ed). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; 1-22.
63. Wiersema MF, Bantel KA,. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal 35 (1): 91-121.
64. Williams RJ,. 2003. Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics 42 (1): 1-10.
65. Wolch JR,. 1995. Corporate philanthropy, urban research, and public policy. In Philanthropy and Economic Development, America RF, (ed). Greenwood Press: Westport, CT; 16-37.