A Contingency View of Impression Management: Heterogeneous Investor Responses to CEO Positive Portrayal of Mergers and Acquisitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Existing research has suggested seemingly contradictory conclusions about the efficacy of impression management (IM) tactics. While a growing body of research highlights the potential benefits of IM, other studies imply that the effectiveness of these tactics in shaping stakeholder perceptions may be limited. Our study advances theory on IM by drawing upon expectancy violations theory to develop a contingency theory of IM efficacy. Concentrating on CEOs’ positive portrayal of merger and acquisition (M&A) activity, we hypothesize that the effectiveness of this IM tactic hinges on factors related to the communicator (CEO duality), context (acquisition foreshadowing), and audience (investor type). Our results indicate that investor reactions to CEOs’ positive portrayal are more favourable when M&A activity has been foreshadowed or when the institutional investor is transient. Conversely, reactions are less favourable for CEOs also serving as board chair. Our findings provide novel insights into IM theory, suggesting that potential expectancy violations associated with IM tactics could be shaped by the attributes of communicator, context, and audience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".