Predicting Firm Success From the Facial Appearance of Chief Executive Officers of Non-Profit Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has demonstrated that judgments of Chief Executive Officers' (CEOs') faces predict their firms' financial performance, finding that characteristics associated with higher power (e.g., dominance) predict greater profits. Most of these studies have focused on CEOs of profit-based businesses, where the main criterion for success is financial gain. Here, we examined whether facial appearance might predict measures of success in a sample of CEOs of non-profit organizations (NPOs). Indeed, contrary to findings for the CEOs of profit-based businesses, judgments of leadership and power from the faces of CEOs of NPOs negatively correlated with multiple measures of charitable success (Study 1). Moreover, CEOs of NPOs looked less powerful than the CEOs of profit-based businesses (Study 2) and leadership ratings positively associated with warmth-based traits and NPO success when participants knew the faces belonged to CEOs of NPOs (Study 3). CEOs who look less dominant may therefore achieve greater success in leading NPOs, opposite the relationship found for the CEOs of profit-based companies. Thus, the relationship between facial appearance and leadership success varies by organizational context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".