MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229970699 · doi:10.1504/ijaf.2018.089971

CEO turnover after poor performance: turnaround or scapegoating?

2018· article· en· W4229970699 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine M. Rodriguez Milanes, Saif Ullah, Thomas Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Accounting and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDismissalScapegoatingCredenceBusinessMonetary economicsScrutinySample (material)EconomicsAccountingBiologyStatisticsLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores whether firms that dismiss their CEO following poor corporate performance exhibit better performance post-turnover or whether dismissal merely serves a scapegoating function. We match firms in the same industry, by size, and by Altman Z-score, and compare our turnover sample with the matched group of firms without CEO dismissal. A subset of our results suggests that, after some delay, the market reacts positively to CEO dismissals that occur following bad performance: underperforming firms that fire their CEO exhibit positive and significant abnormal returns whereas their counterparts that retain their CEO exhibit negative abnormal returns. However, the majority of our findings indicate that CEO turnovers do not translate into better operating performance or firm valuation (Tobin's q), thus lending credence to the scapegoating hypothesis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Accounting and FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207