Idalene F. Kesner

Executive Succession: Past, Present & Future

In this study we review over thirty years of succession research in an effort to discern what we know conclusively about the subject, what we do not know because of mixed results, and what has not yet been studied. We begin by answering two key questions: (1) Why is succession such an important topic? and (2) What makes CEO succession different from other types of turnover? Next, we explore the three key stages of succession research. The first phase covers the period from the 1950s to the 1960s. This period is best described as the emergence of the field. The second phase, covering the 1970s reflects a period of theory building and empirical investigation. The final phase from the 1980s to the present is characterized by review and explosive growth. Following our review, we use these combined studies to create an overall model of succession-a model designed to offer prescriptions as to where researchers have been and where they should be going in the future.

Inside/Outside Succession and Organizational Size: The Pragmatics of Executive Replacement

The article discusses research pertaining to the impact of organizational size on inside versus outside executive succession. The study results indicate that larger organizational size is associate...

Directors' Stock Ownership and Organizational Performance: An Investigation of Fortune 500 Companies

Advocates in favor of boardroom reform have often suggested that when personalfinancial risk is involved, directors will take a more active role in organizational decision-making, and this, in turn, will lead to increased organizationalperformance. Although intuitively appealing, the notion offinancial dependence by board members has never before been empirically tested. This study examines the relationship between a directors stockholdings andfirm performance using a sample of 250 of the Fortune 500 companies. The financial dependence perspective is supported in part by the research findings.

An analysis of board of director size and composition in bankrupt organizations

Abstract Research on corporate boards of directors has suggested that organizations rely on boards to control external interdependencies. As such, organizations often build large boards staffed with a large number of outsiders who have access to critical resources. Little work has been done, however, to investigate the impact of boards in problematic environments or during crisis situations. Using a matched pairs design, this study examined a sample of 127 bankrupt firms along with an equal number of nonbankrupt firms. In the period leading to bankruptcy declaration, declining firms experiences loss of outside directors and decline in overall board size. When compared to their nonbankrupt counterparts, bankrupt companies were also found to have significantly different board structures and to make more changes in their boards in the period after Chapter 11 filing. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed along with the implications of these findings for researchers and corporate directors.

Research Notes: Board Composition and the Commission of Illegal Acts: An Investigation of Fortune 500 Companies

In this article the authors discuss research they conducted on corporate boardrooms. They were interested in examining how effective boards of directors that were comprised of outsiders were. They ...

Brokering Mergers: An Agency Theory Perspective on the Role of Representatives

Agency theory suggests a conflict of interest in the relationship between investment bankers and the firms they represent during merger negotiations. We examined this proposition by scrutinizing th...

On the dynamics of corporate size and illegal activity: An empirical assessment

This research, relying on companies continuously listed on the Fortune 500 over a five-year period (n=384), provides an empirical assessment of two hypotheses. Based on 334 violations over the period the results indicate: (1) gross differences in illegal activity based on corporate size, and (2) similar differences in corporate recidivism also based on size. Discussion includes a number of size related dynamics which may account in part for such results.

The myth of full disclosure: A look at organizational communications during crises

C ommunicating with the public is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks of executives today. Yet at no time is this task more challenging than during crisis situations. Executives whose organizations face crises typically receive two very different pieces of advice. On the one hand, many advisors encourage using extreme caution in speaking out publicly about a crisis. Many lawyers, for example, advise their clients to avoid unnecessary public statements. In some cases, executives are encouraged to avoid public statements altogether. On the other hand, many academics and public relations consultants suggest that when responding to crises, executives should make full and immediate disclosures about the circumstances surrounding the events. Which of these two positions is correct? Should corporate executives reveal all details of crisis situations? Or, in the early stages of crises, should they avoid public statements altogether? If avoidance ts the right answer, how long should they maintain such a stance? When is the right time to address crises publicly? How and at what level should they be addressed? In this article, we take a closer look at corporate communications during crises. We examine the advantages and disadvantages of a full disclosure policy and the circumstances under which this approach should and should not be used. Although we cannot offer a formula for responding to crises, we provide recommendations for executives facing such events--executives who must cope with the inevitable battle between corporate counsel and the media and public relations advocates. Though these two sides may not agree on what Because ali crisis and how much should be said during crises, they both agree sifuu~ions UT@ not

Crisis in the boardroom: fact and fiction

Executive Overview In recent years the popular press has been replete with articles suggesting that a “crisis” is taking place in Americas boardrooms. The culprit—shareholder suits—is blamed not only for the difficulty directors are having in securing affordable liability insurance but also for the exodus of outsiders from corporate boards. Based on a study of 162 publicly held firms, Kesner and Johnson take a closer look at the rise in shareholder suits to distinguish fact from fiction. The authors address trends in shareholder lawsuits and judgments against corporate boards, escalating insurance premiums, the link between corporate size and shareholder suits, and commonly accepted boardroom reforms such as inside/outside composition, separation of the CEO and chairperson positions, stockholding requirements for directors, and decreasing board size. Kesner and Johnson reveal some surprising findings regarding the legal exposure of corporate directors and the related costs of liability insurance. Their r...

Antitakeover tactics: Management 42, stockholders 0☆

Abstract “White knights,” “shark repellents,” “poison pills,” “golden parachutes,” and “greenmail” all sound more appropriate to comic book adventure than to the pages of Business Week and the Wall Street Journal. But these graphic terms describe the new business phenomenon of antitakeover strategies. They are weapons in a very real battle that stockholders appear to be losing badly.