MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039592943 · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12424

What is (s)he Worth? Exploring Mechanisms and Boundary Conditions of the Relationship Between CEO Extraversion and Pay

2020· article· en· W3039592943 on OpenAlexaff
Shavin Malhotra, Winny Shen, Pengcheng Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraversion and introversionPsychologySocial psychologyBig Five personality traitsTraitPersonalityChief executive officerDemographic economicsBusinessManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Integrating human capital theories and the status incongruity hypothesis at the upper echelons, we examine for whom extraversion, the personality trait that has been most strongly and consistently implicated in leader success, influences Chief Executive Officer (CEO) pay. To assess the personality traits of CEOs, we used a computerized text analysis approach on the language spoken by CEOs in conference calls. Using a sample of firms listed on the S&P 1500, we find that more extraverted CEOs earned higher pay, indicating that this was a trait valued by boards. Additionally, this relationship was due to enhanced firm performance; specifically, market performance. However, a critical boundary condition is that the relationship between CEO extraversion and pay was weaker for female (vs. male) CEOs, despite the market responding equally positively to extraverted female and male CEOs. Thus, the monetary benefits of higher levels of extraversion did not extend to female CEOs and likely reflects backlash. Supplemental analyses revealed that this devaluation of more extraverted female (vs. male) CEOs was mitigated when the CEO was also the chairperson of the board (i.e., CEO duality) or under conditions of greater female representation on the board of directors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of ManagementSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207