MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125173423 · doi:10.2308/bria-19-024

CEO Implicit Motives: Their Impact on Firm Performance

2020· article· en· W3125173423 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Research in Accounting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceShareholderBusinessAccountingPower (physics)Investment (military)Monetary economicsEconomicsFinancePolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Using 4,838 annual CEO letters to shareholders for 397 S&P 500 companies from the period 1993 to 2010, this paper examines how CEO implicit motives impact a firm's financial performance. The results show that after controlling for firm and year fixed effects, financial performance increases with a CEO's need for power and decreases with a CEO's need for achievement and need for affiliation. Implicit motives play a significant role in the determination of what makes each CEO unique, and they have persistent effects, even three years after being initially measured. The practical significance of these findings is that firms should carefully consider implicit motives when selecting a CEO. Boards of directors would do well to consider CEO implicit motives as part of their corporate governance “best practices.” Institutional/retail investors may be able to use CEO letters as a useful source of information for making investment decisions.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.193 · 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